Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02233/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02233-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald M. Bird
Plaintiff
Ann Marie Eversole
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD M. BIRD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANN MARIE EVERSOLE, PRESIDENT,

RANCHO TEHAMA ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

CIV. S-05-2233 DFL PAN PS

ORDER 

-o0oOn November 4, 2005, plaintiff filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The

application provides that plaintiff’s only income is Supplemental

Security Income and his only asset is a car worth $500. 

Plaintiff’s affidavit demonstrates that because of poverty he

cannot pay or give security for court costs and still be able to

provide himself with the necessities of life. See Adkins v. E.I.

Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

Case 2:05-cv-02233-DFL-PAN Document 4 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted.

However, a federal court must dismiss the complaint of a

plaintiff proceeding, or seeking to proceed, in forma pauperis if

at any time the court determines the action is frivolous,

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(I), (ii), (iii);

see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring that a complaint

contain a concise statement of the court’s jurisdiction).

The complaint submitted by plaintiff, entitled “Petition

for a Preventive Injunction,” states initially (Petition, pp. 1-

2):

Before this declaration of Rights violation is proclaimed

any further, the Petitioner admits he is unable to State a

Claim at this time. This is the reasoning of this

Preventive Injunction. Read Black’s Law for its definition

and I’ll ask the Court to explain their version. Now that

we have this boiler plate excuse on the record for the

benefit of the Court and “attorneys” let us move forward

with the ripening of the Petition.

The complaint challenges a restriction contained in the Rancho

Tehama Association’s covenants, conditions and restrictions

(“CC&Rs) prohibiting removal of trees exceeding three inches in

diameter. Plaintiff asserts the court has federal question

jurisdiction based upon the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Seventh

Amendment, civil rights statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and

1986, and criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The

complaint expressly challenges the October 20, 2005, findings and

Case 2:05-cv-02233-DFL-PAN Document 4 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows in Donald

M. Bird. V. Ann Marie Eversole et al., Civ. S-05-1757 LKK GGH PS,

that plaintiff’s complaint for injunctive relief to enforce the

Association’s CC&Rs be dismissed with prejudice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. 

While the pleadings of pro se litigants must be construed

liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Abassi v.

I.N.S., 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002), mere reference to

federal law does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction,

Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how defendant’s tree removal

restriction states a federal cause of action. Moreover,

plaintiff’s near-duplicate filing against Ms. Eversole, as well

as his other filings in this court against multiple state and

federal officials (this is the ninth case plaintiff has filed in

this court since June 2001), indicate his complaint is both

frivolous and malicious.

I find therefore that plaintiff’s failure to establish

this court’s jurisdiction requires dismissal of his complaint for

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

(ii).

Plaintiff may serve and file, within twenty (20) days of

service of this order, an amended complaint that establishes this

court’s jurisdiction and states a claim for which relief may be

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02233-DFL-PAN Document 4 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

granted. Plaintiff’s failure timely to comply with this order

will result in a recommendation of dismissal. 

So ordered.

Dated: November 30, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02233-DFL-PAN Document 4 Filed 12/01/05 Page 4 of 4