Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01594/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01594-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sevan Kayaian
Plaintiff
State of California
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

27

28 This Court has been informed that plaintiff has been escorted from this Court’s building.

1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEVAN KAYAIAN, CASE NO. CV F 06-1594 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sevan Kayaian (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on November

8, 2006, filed an untitled document which this Court construes as a complaint (“complaint”), the

purported caption of which appears to list the State of California as defendant. The complaint is

generally unintelligible and states: “My freedom has been taken along with my property and cash

money”; “It’s sad that after spending a year in Iraq and coming home only to have my freedoms stripped

away from me”; and “I am not even aloud [sic] to sit and watch a chase [sic] in the Federal Court

House.” The complaint appears to seek a return of property and “punitive damages 14 hours in jail.” 1

Case 1:06-cv-01594-AWI-LJO Document 7 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

2

The magistrate judge issued November 13, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further

attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the complaint’s unintelligible statements and apparent

attempts to vex. On November 16, 2006, plaintiff filed what this Court construes as objections to the

findings and recommendations. The objections are rambling, largely unintelligible and appear to

confront the magistrate judge. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s November 13, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s November 13, 2006 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to

establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted

based on the complaint’s unintelligible statements and apparent attempts to vex; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01594-AWI-LJO Document 7 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2