Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01687-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mika Christina Alfaro
Plaintiff
Susan Miranda
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1

 This case was subsequently re-assigned to the undersigned. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKA CHRISTINA ALFARO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1687 LKK EFB PS

vs.

SUSAN MIRANDA,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On August 9, 2006, Magistrate Judge Gregory H. Hollows issued an order in the

above-captioned case, denying plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing

the case with leave to amend.1

 By that same order, plaintiff was ordered to file within thirty days

from the date of service of the order both a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis

and an amended complaint establishing this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The order, which

was served on plaintiff on August 10, 2006, cautioned plaintiff that failure to file either a

complete in forma pauperis application or an amended complaint would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff has not complied with that order and for

the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that this action now be dismissed

Case 2:06-cv-01687-LKK -EFB Document 7 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

without leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s first application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied because she

failed to fully answer several questions regarding her income and assets. Specifically, she did

not fully answer question no. 2b (regarding the “amount of your take-home salary or wages and

pay period and the name and address of your last employer”); question no. 3 (regarding the

amount, source and frequency of the “disability or workers compensation” and “gifts and

inheritances” she receives); and question no. 4 (regarding the cash with which she planned to

open a checking account). To date, plaintiff has failed to file a complete in forma pauperis

application. Without a completed application, plaintiff’s request to proceed cannot be granted

On September 7, 2006, plaintiff filed an “amended complaint.” The amended

complaint, like the original complaint, fails to set forth the basis for this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, the allegations of the complaint do not enable the

court to discern any jurisdictional basis for this action. A federal court is a court of limited

jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the Constitution and by

Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal

jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal question” and “diversity”

jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the complaint (1) arise

under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within the

meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be authorized by a federal statute that

both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.

186, 198 (1962). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts unless

demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may

be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer

Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The amended complaint makes no reference to federal law and does not appear to

be based on diversity jurisdiction. In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant

Case 2:06-cv-01687-LKK -EFB Document 7 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 On August 29, 2006, plaintiff also filed a letter with the court that includes additional

allegations concerning harassment and theft by the defendant. This letter does nothing to explain

what claims plaintiff asserts in this action and how this court has subject matter over them.

3

harasses her, steals from her and has forged her signature on her social security checks. Neither

these allegations, nor any other allegation in the amended complaint, establish a basis for this

court’s subject matter jurisdiction.2

Plaintiff has not complied with the court order dated August 9, 2006, which

required her to submit a complete in forma pauperis application and to amend the complaint to

establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. That order warned plaintiff that such failure

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without leave to amend.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 14, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01687-LKK -EFB Document 7 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 3