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).

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?