United States District Court, D. North Dakota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAREN K. KLEIN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Magdalina Kalincheva, M.D. ("Kalincheva") filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma paupeirs (Doc. #1), a supporting affidavit (Doc. #1-1), and a second application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #1-2) (hereinafter referred to as "motion to proceed IFP"). In addition to the motion to proceed IFP plaintiff submitted for filing a motion for exemption from payment of the PACER fee (Doc. #1-3), motion for official service of process (Doc. #1-6), a motion requiring that the defendant be served electronically (Doc. #1-9), a motion for a change of venue which appears to have been filed in either the Eastern or Northern District of California (Doc. #1-10), a second motion to change venue (Doc. #1-11), a motion to set aside an illegal divorce (Doc. #1-12), a motion for a writ of possession (Doc. #1-14), a motion to access the electronic case filing system and for the defendant to provide the hardware needed for such access (Doc. #1-15), a second motion for the defendant to provide the necessary hardware to access the electronic filing system and to pay a penalty of one million dollars a day until such items are provided (Doc. #1-16), and a motion to find and import a potential husband (Doc. #1-18).
In this action Kalincheva is attempting to sue her ex-husband Jesse Neubarth. Kalincheva and the defendant were divorced in California in 1992, and Kalincheva is apparently dissatisfied with the judgment entered in that case. (Doc. #1-12). Kalincheva has not submitted a proposed complaint. Even if her various motions were construed as a complaint, it would not comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that a pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the ground for the court's jurisdiction" and "a short and plain statement of the claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The court notes the parties are not residents of North Dakota and plaintiff has not alleged any facts involving North Dakota. Even though Kalincheva's submissions contain vague references to federal immigration laws, she has not alleged a private cause of action based on any federal law. Additionally, if the court were to construe Kalincheva's motions as a complaint it would be the complete opposite of a short and plain statement, and it would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
It is RECOMMENDED that the motion to proceed IFP be DENIED and the action be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the court find that any appeal would be frivolous, could not be taken in ...