Freemanvibe et al v. Valley Arts and Science Academy et al, No. 1:2012cv01727 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/20/2012. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of screening the complaint. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Freemanvibe et al v. Valley Arts and Science Academy et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INDIGO FREEMANVIBE, et. al, 12 CASE NO. 1:12-cv-1727 AWI- BAM Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 vs. 14 15 VALLEY ARTS and SCIENCE ACADEMY, et. al, Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 Plaintiff Indigo Freemanvibe is proceeding pro se in this civil action, having filed a complaint 18 on October 19, 2012. (Doc. 1). On October 29, 2012, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe 19 issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff complete and submit a new 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis, or in the alternative, pay the $350.00 filing fee for this 21 action. (Doc. 6). The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice 22 that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days of 23 service of the Order. (Doc. 6). On November 13, 2012, without objection, Plaintiff paid the $350.00 24 filing fee. (Receipt No. CAE100020627). 25 In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636 (b)(1)(c), 26 this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 Additionally, there are concerns with Plaintiff’s complaint, including whether valid causes -1Dockets.Justia.com 1 of action have been stated. The Court may raise issues such as jurisdiction and whether a complaint 2 states a claim sua sponte. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 3 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (failure to 4 state a claim). Prior to issuance of any summonses, the Court will refer the complaint to the 5 Magistrate Judge to issue a Findings and Recommendation regarding whether the complaint states 6 valid causes of action for purposes of Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 11 The Findings and Recommendations dated October 29, 2012, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of screening the 12 complaint to determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction and 13 whether the complaint states valid and properly pled causes of action. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: 0m8i78 November 20, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
