IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 6, 2012
MIKA C. ALFARO, PLAINTIFF,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, Mika Alfaro, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application, however, states that plaintiff currently receives $5,400 a month in take-home pay and has $250,000 in cash or in a checking or savings account. (Doc. No. 2 at 1-2.) Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The court may authorize the commencement of an action "without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The amount of plaintiff's income shows that plaintiff is able to pay the filing fee and costs. Thus, plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of indigency. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Requiring the payment of fees according to a plaintiff's ability to pay serves the dual aims of defraying some of the judicial costs of litigation and screening out frivolous claims.").
Ordinarily, the undersigned would recommend that plaintiff's in forma pauperis application be denied and that plaintiff be granted an opportunity to pay the filing fee in full before proceeding. However, as in at least fourteen other cases filed by plaintiff in this court since February 10, 2006, no basis for federal jurisdiction has been alleged in plaintiff's complaint.*fn1 In the present action, the named defendant is the "Social Security Administration." (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 2.) Plaintiff in his complaint alleges that "the person at the Social Security Administration Office" is "harassing [plaintiff] again," that this person "has a very bad odor coming from he's (sic) ear and likes to stay near [plaintiff] after work." (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that this same man is a trying to steal plaintiff's Social Security Disability money and plaintiff does not "want to hold on to he's (sic) bad ear." (Id.)
Plaintiff's complaint contains no allegations that state any
cognizable federal claim nor does it contain a short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends.
It therefore appears that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the action. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)
(recognizing that a claim is subject to
dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is "wholly insubstantial
and frivolous" and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction ); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974)
(acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
if it is "so insubstantial, implausible, . . . or otherwise completely
devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the
jurisdiction of the District Court"); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745
F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) ("A paid complaint that is
'obviously frivolous' does not confer federal subject matter
jurisdiction . . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of
Based on plaintiff's history of filing obviously frivolous actions, the undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend, even if she were to pay the required filing fee. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application should be denied and this action should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall designate this matter as a pro se action; and
2. That a District Judge be randomly assigned to this action. Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's August 1, 2012, application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No.
2) be denied; and
2. This action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled "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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).