(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Malmquist ( 2019 )

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-01520 TLN AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GARY MALMQUIST, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 21 I. SCREENING 22 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 26 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 27 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 28 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 1 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 2 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 3 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 4 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 5 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 7 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 8 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 13 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 14 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 15 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 16 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 17 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 18 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 19 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 20 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 21 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 22 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 23 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 24 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 25 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 26 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 27 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 28 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 1 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 2 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 3 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 4 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 5 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 6 A. The Complaint 7 Plaintiff filed a 221-page complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the complaint is 8 entirely incomprehensible. The language used in the compliant and the vast multitude of 9 muddled facts makes it impossible for the court to summarize the contents. ECF No. 1. The 10 complaint contains many attachments, including documents from various prior court proceedings 11 and written notes from the plaintiff. Id. 12 B. Analysis 13 The complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for 14 federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even though those 15 things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff 16 is obscured by the complaint, which contains apparently disconnected events and circumstances. 17 The court cannot tell from examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to plaintiff, by 18 whom and when, or how any alleged harm is connected to the relief plaintiff seeks. 19 Accordingly, the complaint cannot be served. Rather than immediately recommending 20 dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide plaintiff an opportunity to amend his 21 complaint to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction and facts supporting a cognizable cause of 22 action. 23 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 24 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 25 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 26 statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 27 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 28 paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 1 complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 2 possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 3 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor 4 (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 5 Because plaintiff’s original complaint is so excessively long, the amended complaint shall be 6 limited to 25 pages. 7 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 8 narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 9 happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 10 give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 11 contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 12 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 13 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 14 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 15 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 16 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 17 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 18 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 19 what.” Id. at 1179. 20 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 21 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 22 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 23 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 24 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 25 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 26 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 27 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 28 alleged. 1 IH. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 2 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your 3 || complaint what legal harm was done to you. Because the complaint as written does not complaint 4 | ashort and plain statement of facts supporting legal causes of action, it will not be served on 5 | defendants. Your amended complaint can be no longer than 25 pages long. Your lawsuit 6 || cannot proceed unless you fix the problems with your complaint. 7 You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that provides a proper basis 8 | for federal jurisdiction. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms 9 | what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations 10 || impacted you. Without this information, the court cannot tell what legal claims you are trying to 11 | bring against the defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the 12 || undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 16 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint which 17 complies with the instructions given above, including the 25-page length limit. If plaintiff 18 fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be 19 dismissed. 20 || DATED: September 3, 2019 ~ 21 HMtan—Chone ALLISON CLAIRE 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28