(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Placerville Self Storage ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:19-cv-01418-MCE-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PLACERVILLE SELF STORAGE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a 18 third amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) 19 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 20 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 21 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2). 23 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 24 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 25 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 26 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 27 490 U.S. at 327. 28 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 1 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 2 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 3 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 4 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 5 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 6 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 7 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 8 at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 9 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 10 and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 11 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 12 In this action, plaintiff alleges a variety of claims against a self-storage entity and three 13 prosecuting attorneys. (ECF No. 15 at 2–3.) Many, if not all, of plaintiff’s allegations are 14 incomprehensible. For instance, plaintiff claims that “[t]he ‘implied’ cause of actions is the 15 violations of freedom, as the medical stroke conditions were exasperated beyond human 16 comprehensions.” (ECF No. 15 at 4.) 17 Plaintiff was previously advised of the standards for stating a claim. The third amended 18 complaint does not cure the pleading deficiencies evident in the original complaint, the first 19 amended complaint, or the second amended complaint. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how the 20 conduct of each defendant resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs’ federal rights. See Ellis v. 21 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 22 Plaintiff has now filed four complaints in this action. Plaintiff has been advised of the 23 standards for stating a claim. Like the prior complaints that contained only vague and conclusory 24 allegations, the third amended complaint still fails to state a claim. At best, plaintiff’s pleadings 25 demonstrate that he suffers from a delusional belief that a public storage facility and public 26 prosecutors have engaged in a conspiracy to steal plaintiff’s property and cause plaintiff’s 27 medical problems. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim pursuant to section 28 1983. In other words, in each complaint, plaintiff has failed to allege a proper basis for 1 | jurisdiction. The allegations are also insufficient to put defendants on notice of the basis of the 2 | claims brought against them. 3 Despite repeated opportunities to cure the deficiencies in his complaints, plaintiff has 4 | failed to do so. It is therefore apparent that further amendment would be futile. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 11 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 12 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 | Dated: February 4, 2020 CA rd ht / {o— 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY) 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 |} 15 heuvell518.tac.dismiss 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28