(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Barbour ( 2023 )

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. 2:23-cv-00021-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISCHARGING 14 TRACY BARBOUR, THE COURT’S JUNE 9, 2023 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 4, 5, & 6 16 17 18 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting claims against Tracy Barbour, an 19 employee at the Placerville Courthouse, together with an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis.1 His complaint, however, fails to state a claim. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 22 §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 26 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint before I screened his original complaint. 1 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 2 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 3 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 4 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 5 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 6 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 7 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 8 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 9 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 10 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 11 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 12 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 13 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 14 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 15 Analysis 16 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and 17 plain statement of plaintiff’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The complaint names Tracy 18 Barbour, a Placerville Court employee, as the defendant and seeks a $500,000 default judgment 19 against her. Id. at 4. But the complaint neither articulates what action or inaction defendant took 20 against plaintiff nor explains how defendant could be in default as the complaint has yet to be 21 served. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must 22 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 23 support the plaintiff’s claim.”); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Plaintiff must allege with at least some 24 degree of particularity overt acts of defendant that support his claims. Id. Currently, a significant 25 portion of plaintiff’s allegations are incomprehensible. For example, the complaint alleges that 26 “the intent injuries of justified trusted public service intently violating A.D.A. guideline, and or 27 humanitarian guidelines of ‘due ethics’ to an overly wrongful actions of intents encarserations 28 1 | followed by ‘harsh’ ignorances and built denials of such in the presence of God, and myself to 2 | endure in honorable warriors of intent abusive natures by the unethical companies.” Id. 3 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this 4 | action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 5 | will supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 6 | 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 7 | without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 8 | complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 9 | complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 10 | defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second 11 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 12 || amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is granted. 15 2. For good cause shown in plaintiffs response, ECF No. 6, the court discharges its June 16 | 9, 2023 order to show cause, ECF No. 5. 17 3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 18 | amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 19 | the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 20 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 21 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form complaint. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ December 4, 2023 ow—— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28