Kalincheva v. Neubarth

Filing 13

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To Cure Deficiencies, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 11/17/14. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03048-GPG
(The above civil action number must appear on all future papers
sent to the court in this action. Failure to include this number
may result in a delay in the consideration of your claims.)

MAGDALINA KALINCHEVA, MD,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESSE NEUBARTH, and
OTHER DEFENDANTS,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CURE DEFICIENCIES

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff Magdalina Kalincheva, MD, submitted a
“Complaint for Injunctive Releif [sic] Restraining Order and Damages 10/22/2014Present,” a “Notice of Removal of All Cases, Change of Venue, Relief,” a “Declination
to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment Only to United
States Judge,” “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations
F & Rs,” an “Ex Parte Motion for Pacer Credit and Exemption From the User Fee in all
Districts for the Next 24-50 Years Restitution,” an “Ex Parte Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc
Orders to Correct Court Records, to Correct all Illegal Actions in Wrong State Court
Errors Since 1991-92, Affidavit,” and an “Ex Parte Motion Request for Preliminary
Injunction & TRO Several Motions for Plaintiff to Have Nine Biologically Hers Children

First Strictly, Affidavit.” Plaintiff also has submitted three separate requests to proceed
in forma pauperis.
As part of the Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), the Court has
determined that the documents are deficient as described in this Order. Plaintiff will be
directed to cure the following if she wishes to pursue any claims in this Court in this
action. Any papers that Plaintiff files in response to this Order must include the civil
action number on this Order.
The Court also has reviewed the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) and found that Plaintiff has filed twenty-three cases since 2012 in various
federal district courts. Plaintiff has filed three cases in the Southern District of
California, six in the Eastern District of California, and four in the Northern District of
California. Plaintiff also has filed a case in each of the following federal district courts:
Northern District of Indiana; Eastern District of Virginia; District of Idaho; Eastern District
of Kentucky; District of Massachusetts; Western District of Minnesota; District of
Michigan; Western District of Oklahoma; Northern District of Georgia; and District of
North Dakota. In each of these cases, Plaintiff names Jesse Neubarth as the
defendant.
The District of Idaho recently dismissed a case that alleges claims similar to the
claims Plaintiff asserts in this action. See Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 14-cv-00351EJL-CWD (D. Idaho Sept. 16, 2014). In Case No. 14-cv-00351, the District of Idaho
found Plaintiff failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and to state a cause of action
based on any federal law. The District of Idaho took judicial notice of cases Plaintiff

2

had filed in various other federal district courts that alleged the same claims as Plaintiff
asserted in Case No. 14-cv-0351. The District of Idaho found these cases were
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to comply with Rule 8.1
Furthermore, in Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 14-cv-01261-LJO-JLT (E.D. Calif.
Oct. 31, 2014), Plaintiff raised the same claims and for the most part submitted the
same pleadings as she has done in the instant case. Case No. 14-cv -01261 was
dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Plaintiff had previously
raised the same claims in Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 13-cv-01601-TLN-DAD (E.D.
Calif. Feb. 21, 2014), and Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 12-cv-02231-JAM-DAD (E.D.

1

See Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 3:13-cv-00104-RRE-KKK (D. N.D. Mar. 25, 2014)
(motion to proceed IFP denied for lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 3:13-cv-384 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21,
2013) (motion to proceed IFP denied because the complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 0:14-cv-20 (D. Minn. Feb. 20,
2014) (motion to proceed IFP denied because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 5:13-cv-400 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 26, 2013)
(complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for failure to
comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for lack of jurisdiction);
Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 2:13-cv-231 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2014) (complaint dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction and as frivolous); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 4:13-cv-40110 (D. Mass. Oct.
2, 2013) (complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and plaintiff warned that she would be
subject to monetary sanctions if she submitted any additional frivolous or unreasonable
pleadings); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 3:13-cv-3212 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013) (case
transferred to the Eastern District of California where the plaintiff and defendant reside);
Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 3:13-cv-789 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2013 (motion to leave to proceed
IFP denied because the complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted); Kalincheva v.
Neubarth, No. 3:13-cv-3294 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) (case transferred to the Eastern District
of California where the plaintiff and defendant reside); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 5:13-cv-963
(W.D. Okla. Sept. 27, 2013) (case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to comply
with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 2:13-cv-416
(N.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2013) (motion to proceed IFP denied and case dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 3:13-cv-1046 (S.D. Cal. filed May 1, 2013) (case
pending and plaintiff notified that she failed to comply with the local rules); Kalincheva v.
Neubarth, No. 2:13-cv-1601 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (motion to proceed IFP denied and
complaint dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and based on res judicata).

3

Calif. Dec. 13, 2012). The Eastern District of California had dismissed the two previous
actions for failure to state a claim. See Case No. 14-cv-01261-LJO-JLT at ECF No. 39.
Plaintiff’s attempt to raise the same claims in this Court that she has raised in
other federal actions, and that were dismissed on the merits, is an abuse of the federal
judicial system. She is warned that this Court does not tolerate such abuse. Any
attempt by Plaintiff to relitigate the issues that were addressed by the Eastern District of
California, and dismissed on the merits, will result in Plaintiff being subject to filing
restrictions in this Court. The Court, nonetheless, will allow Plaintiff to cure the
deficiencies noted below. Plaintiff, however, is to assert only claims that are properly
raised in this Court and that have not been addressed and dismissed on the merits by
another federal district court.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion and Affidavit:
(1)
is not submitted
(2)
is missing affidavit
(3)
is missing certified copy of prisoner’s trust fund statement for the 6-month
period immediately preceding this filing
(4)
is missing certificate showing current balance in prison account
(5)
is missing required financial information
(6)
is missing authorization to calculate and disburse filing fee payments
(7)
is missing an original signature by the prisoner
(8)
X
is not on proper form (Must use Court-approved form)
(9)
names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, petition or
habeas application
(10)
other:
Complaint, Petition or Application:
(11)
is not submitted
(12)
X
is not on proper form
(13)
is missing an original signature by the prisoner
(14)
is missing page nos.
(15)
uses et al. instead of listing all parties in caption
(16)
names in caption do not match names in text
(17)
addresses must be provided for all defendants/respondents in “Section A.
Parties” of complaint, petition or habeas application
(18)
other:
4

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff comply with this Order and cure the deficiencies
designated above within thirty days from the date of this Order. Any papers that
Plaintiff files in response to this Order must include the civil action number on this
Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain the Court-approved Complaint
form and Application to Proceed in District Court W ithout Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Long Form), along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies,
within thirty days from the date of this Order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED November 17, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher

United States Magistrate Judge

5