Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02233/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02233-1/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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

-o0oOn December 1, 2005, this court granted plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his

complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), due to plaintiff’s failure to establish this

court’s jurisdiction over his dispute with the Rancho Tehama

Association and its prohibition against removing trees measuring

three inches or less in diameter. Plaintiff was accorded twenty

days within which to serve and file an amended complaint.

Case 2:05-cv-02233-DFL-PAN Document 6 Filed 12/28/05 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

On December 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend

Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s Complaint,” captioned “Our Constitution

is a ‘God Damn Piece of Paper,’” wherein plaintiff asserts, “What

is the point of allowing this case to be amended when by the

Court’s declaration of a ‘Lack of Jurisdiction’ makes any

response moot.” Plaintiff’s “motion” includes two articles

published by the “J.A.I.L. News Journal,” which assert that

judges lack integrity, and which plaintiff avers should “give

this Court the insight of why citizens will ‘Force’ a change of

the ‘Status Quo’ of the Judicial System. Pay Attention. This is

my version of ‘Stating a Claim.’”

Plaintiff has again failed to establish this court’s

jurisdiction. Accordingly, I recommend dismissal of this action 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

(B)(ii).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable David F. Levi, the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

////

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02233-DFL-PAN Document 6 Filed 12/28/05 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

3

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

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

Dated: December 28, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02233-DFL-PAN Document 6 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 3