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

JOHN ZAREFAKIS, No. MISC.S-04-0295 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RICK MATUSKA,

Defendant.

__________________________/

By order filed May 23, 2005, plaintiff, who is proceeding

pro se, was directed to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As observed by

the court in that order, plaintiff initiated this action by filing a

document entitled “Commercial Notice within the Admiralty of the

Filing of Foreign Judgment.” That “commercial notice” appears to be

an attempt to record a debt against certain San Joaquin County code

enforcement officers and members of the San Joaquin County Board of

Supervisors. The filing also makes reference to the Internal Revenue

Service and the San Joaquin County Development Department. However,

Case 2:04-mc-00295-DFL-DAD Document 6 Filed 08/03/05 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

as the court indicated in the order to show cause, the “commercial

notice” provides no basis for federal jurisdiction and there is no

legal basis for filing such notices. See United States v. MacElvain,

858 F. Supp. 1096, 1100 (M.D. Ala. 1994)(collecting cases).

Plaintiff timely responded to the court’s order to show

cause by filing a document styled as a “Commercial Affidavit in

Fact.” The court finds plaintiff’s response unpersuasive. The only

plausible legal argument advanced by plaintiff in his “Commercial

Affidavit,” a document which is cluttered with archaic legalese, is

that the filing of a “commercial notice” is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §

1963. However, § 1963 clearly does not authorize the filing of a

“commercial notice” such as the one plaintiff is attempting to

register. See Fox Paint Co. v. N.L.R.B., 16 F.3d 115, 117 (6th Cir.

1994)(holding that the statute providing for registration of foreign

judgments does not permit registration of judgments of courts other

than those listed courts). Nor is the “Notarial Protest and Notice

of Administrative Judgment by Estoppel” attached to plaintiff’s

notice within the purview of § 1963. That document appears to have

been drafted by plaintiff and obviously has not been entered by any

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (“A judgment in an action for

the recovery of money or property entered in any court of appeals,

district court, bankruptcy court, or in the Court of International

Trade may be registered by filing a certified copy of the judgment in

any other district ....”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.

Case 2:04-mc-00295-DFL-DAD Document 6 Filed 08/03/05 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

P. 12(h)(3)(“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,

the court shall dismiss the action.”).

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 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 3, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\zarefakis.f&r

Case 2:04-mc-00295-DFL-DAD Document 6 Filed 08/03/05 Page 3 of 3