(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Cissna ( 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, No. 2:21-cv-01342-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE 14 TO AMEND TERI CISSNA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned by Local 19 Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. In addition, plaintiff has 20 filed an application in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The request will be 22 granted. 23 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 25 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 26 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 27 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 28 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 2 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 3 baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 4 See Id. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th 5 Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 6 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 7 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Scheuer 8 v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than 9 those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need 10 not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of 11 fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation 12 of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 13 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 15 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 16 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 17 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 18 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT 19 The complaint names as defendants Teri Cissna, Ben Alvarez and James Marshall, who 20 plaintiff alleges are sheriff’s deputies in El Dorado County, California. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The 21 brief factual allegations are largely indiscernible, but it appears that plaintiff may be alleging he 22 was falsely arrested. Plaintiff mentions the date of July 20, 2021, California Penal Code section 23 236 [defining “false imprisonment” as the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another], 24 false arrest, “pre-existing medical stroke,” and “deceptive intent false statements spoken in 25 court.” (Id. at 3, 5.) Plaintiff seeks money damages in the amount of $150,000,000.00 for “[w]ell 26 suffered fee commenced on 7/20/2021 @ 10,000.00 per day[.]” (Id. at 4.) 27 //// 28 //// 1 III. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM 2 A. Failure to Comply with Rule 8 3 The complaint fails to allege a “plain statement of the claim” in a “simple, concise, and 4 direct” manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(1). In order to give fair notice of the claims and the 5 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt 6 acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 7 (9th Cir. 1996). 8 Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the requisite standard. The court is unable to discern 9 what causes of action plaintiff intends to bring. Accordingly, the complaint is subject to dismissal. 10 See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint 11 where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what 12 theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 13 While the factual allegations in the complaint are brief, plaintiff has attached over 500 14 pages of exhibits including transcripts and medical and mental health records. Plaintiff is advised 15 that although the court will sometimes consider exhibits when screening a complaint, the court 16 will not comb through hundreds of pages of exhibits in search of possible claims. If plaintiff 17 chooses to amend this complaint, in order to state a claim he must state his claims clearly in the 18 actual complaint. 19 B. False Arrest 20 Plaintiff is additionally cautioned that to any extent he seeks damages for false arrest, he 21 does not have a cognizable claim unless he can prove that his conviction or sentence has been 22 reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 23 authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a 24 writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Under Heck, when a 25 plaintiff files a section 1983 action, the court must consider whether “a judgment in favor of the 26 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the 27 complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence 28 has already been invalidated.” Id. at 487; see also, e.g., Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th 1 Cir. 2006) (concluding that Heck barred the plaintiff’s civil rights claims alleging wrongful arrest, 2 malicious prosecution and conspiracy among police officers to bring false charges against him). 3 In short, Heck prevents plaintiff from bringing any claim that would imply the invalidity of his 4 conviction. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 The complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a valid claim for relief. However, 7 plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 8 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by 9 amendment, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 10 opportunity to amend). If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be clearly 11 captioned “First Amended Complaint,” reference this case number, and fix the deficiencies 12 identified herein. In any amended complaint, plaintiff must describe with at least some specificity 13 the acts or omissions which a defendant or defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. 14 Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 15 Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 16 reference to any prior pleading. Therefore, in any amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 17 each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. See Loux v. 18 Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 19 Although failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in 20 a recommendation that this action be dismissed, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a 21 first amended complaint. If plaintiff is unable or unwilling to cure the complaint’s deficiencies, 22 then plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED: 24 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 25 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim; and 26 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 27 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 28 Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 1 | and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in 2 || accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 3 | Dated: September 23, 2021 ( aie } Kt | / p , a sia 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 8.vand.21ev1342.screen 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28