Opinion
No. CIV.S-05-0217 WBS DAD PS.
December 5, 2005
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By order dated October 20, 2005, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, was directed to properly complete and file an amended in forma pauperis application or pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00. Plaintiff also was directed to show cause in writing why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has timely filed an amended in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
However, the required time has expired and plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. As previously observed by the undersigned, plaintiff's complaint indicates that he is attempting to sue two individuals regarding breach of "a verbal contract when we buy the house" located in Fairfield, California. Such a breach of contract claim is more properly pursued in state court. This court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 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 ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are 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).