IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 13, 2012
LYNN COLLINS, ON BEHALF OF PATIENTS OF DR. TERRILL E. BROWN, M.D., MPH, PLAINTIFFS,
WALGREEN CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. Nos. 3, 5)
Plaintiff Lynn Collins, et. al, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is proceeding pro se in this civil action, having filed a complaint on October 19, 2012. (Doc. 1). On November 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff complete and submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, or in the alternative, pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 5). The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days of service of the Order. (Doc. 5). On December 6, 2012, without objection, Plaintiff paid the $350.00 filing fee. (Receipt No. CAE100020838).
In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Additionally, there are concerns with Plaintiff's complaint, including whether valid causes of action have been stated. The Court may raise issues such as jurisdiction and whether a complaint states a claim sua sponte. SeeChapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1981) (failure to state a claim). When reviewing a complaint sua sponte, the Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the litigant has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant(s) who is immune from such relief. Prior to the issuance of any summonses, the Court will refer the complaint to the Magistrate Judge to issue findings and Recommendations regarding whether the complaint states valid causes of action for purposes of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff is advised that the Magistrate Judge has a large number of such cases pending before it and the Court will screen Plaintiff's complaint in due course.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 21, 2012, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED due the payment of the filing fee by Plaintiff; and
3. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of screening the complaint to determine whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and whether the complaint states valid and properly pled causes of action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.