(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Van den Heuvel ( 2021 )

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, Case No. 2:21-cv-0371-JAM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. ECF No. 1 14 ROBERT VAN DEN HEUVEL, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED AS 15 Defendant. FRIVOLOUS 16 17 Plaintiff brings this case as an attempt to challenge his adoptive family’s estate. ECF 18 No. 1. Plaintiff has had substantially similar lawsuits dismissed as patently frivolous. See, e.g., 19 Van Den Heuvel v. The Will of Raymond Charles Van Den Heuvel, 2:20-cv-04039-CJC-KS, 20 Order at ECF No. 7 (June 24, 2020) (dismissing plaintiff’s case as frivolous and for lack of 21 jurisdiction because it was his third attempt to file suit in federal court disputing a family estate 22 case); Van Den Heuvel v. Van Den Heuvel, 2:20-cv-02087-CJC-KS, Order at ECF No. 6 (March 23 6, 2020) (dismissing plaintiff’s case as patently frivolous because plaintiff attempts to bring a 24 civil rights action against his sibling for failure to effectuate adoption proceedings in 1968). 25 Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to dismissal as 26 either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 27 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). This case is duplicative of those cases and equally frivolous; 28 plaintiff cannot bring his decades-old estate dispute to federal court. 1 Accordingly, it is recommended that plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice as 2 | frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 3 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 4 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 5 | Eastern District of California. Plaintiff may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 6 | recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 7 | Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 | Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 9 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 10 | waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ October 9, 2021 Q————. 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28