Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01783-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mika Christina Alfaro
Plaintiff
Anderson Burney
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKA CHRISTINA ALFARO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1783 DFL EFB PS

vs.

ANDERSON BURNEY,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On September 26, 2006, this court issued an order denying plaintiff’s application

to proceed in forma pauperis because it was incomplete. By that same order, the court dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint, and granted her thirty days to file both a complete application to proceed in

forma pauperis and an amended complaint that established this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction over her claims. 

Instead of filing a completed application and amended complaint, plaintiff has

filed various non-responsive documents, none of which comply with the court’s order of

September 26, 2006. On October 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a “Declaration” whereby she seems to

request the appointment of a public defender to assist her in legally separating from defendant. 

On October 16, 2006, plaintiff filed various state court forms concerning her request to obtain a

legal separation from defendant. On October 24, 2006, plaintiff filed another “Declaration”

Case 2:06-cv-01783-DFL-EFB Document 13 Filed 11/08/06 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

2

requesting the court’s assistance to arrest defendant. 

None of these documents cure the defects in the originally filed complaint, nor do

they otherwise comply with this court’s order. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the

September 26, 2006, order, and for plaintiff’s failure to present an amended complaint curing the

defects of the original complaint as explained therein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

(10) 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.” Plaintiff is advised that 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, 1157 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: November 8, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01783-DFL-EFB Document 13 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2