(PS) Boiteau v. People of the State of CA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD MARC BOITEAU, Case No. 2:23-cv-0146-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On April 24, 2025, I ordered plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why this action 18 should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 4. In that order, I 19 observed that plaintiff’s complaint neither alleged a viable federal claim nor established that the 20 parties’ citizenship is diverse. To date, plaintiff has not responded to that order. 21 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 22 1. That this action be sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the 23 reasons set forth in the April 24, 2025 order. 24 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 27 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 28 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 1 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 2 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 3 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 4 | Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 5 | 1991). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ June 2, 2025 aw—— 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28