Kalincheva v. Neubarth

Filing 12

ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 6/18/2014. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nahS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

MAGDALINA KALINCHEVA,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER

JESSE NEUBARTH,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-2705 PJH

Defendant.
_______________________________/

12
13

Plaintiff Magdalina Kalincheva initiated this action on June 11, 2014, by filing seven

14

"ex parte" applications seeking various types of relief, along with a motion for leave to

15

proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), without prepayment of fees.

16

The court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without

17

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

18

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). When a

19

complaint is filed IFP, the court must dismiss it prior to service of process if it is frivolous or

20

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

21

damages against defendants who are immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also

22

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984).

23

Here, the court is unable to conduct the review mandated by § 1915 because

24

plaintiff did not file a complaint. Moreover, the case cannot proceed in the absence of a

25

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 ("A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with

26

the court.") The complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing

27

that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

28

In this case, based on the "ex parte" applications filed by plaintiff, the court is unable

1

to determine what possible claims plaintiff might be attempting to assert in this action, and

2

what facts support those claims. The applications are largely incomprehensible. The court

3

notes, however, that there appear to be similarities between the applications filed in this

4

case and the allegations in the numerous other cases filed by plaintiff against the same

5

defendant in this judicial district, the Eastern District of California, the Southern District of

6

California, and judicial districts in other states, and that the dismissal of the claims in those

7

cases might bar any relitigation of the same claims here.

8
9

No later than July 18, 2014, plaintiff must file a complaint in this action, setting forth
the causes of action she intends to assert, and also setting forth facts that clearly support
those causes of action, including a clear statement of the actions of defendant Jesse

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Neubarth that she believes gives rise to those causes of action. Plaintiff must also state

12

the location of defendant's residence. Finally, plaintiff must file a revised IFP application.

13

In particular, the court finds plaintiff's response to question No. 10 (asking whether the

14

complaint she seeks to file raises claims that have been presented in other lawsuits) to be

15

incomprehensible.

16

Plaintiff's request that the court serve her with copies of orders and other documents

17

by fax or email is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for access to PACER for 24 years without

18

payment of user fees is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: June 18, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2