(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store ( 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. 2:22-cv-00249-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 WALMART SUPER STORE, et al., ECF No. 8 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 16 DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint that purports to assert claims against Walmart 19 Super Stores, Karen Roberts, and other individual defendants.1 Like the initial complaint, the 20 amended complaint does not state a cognizable claim. Since plaintiff has not remedied the 21 deficiencies highlighted in the prior screening order, I will recommend that the amended 22 complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 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 27 1 Plaintiff lists as defendants in the case caption Karen Roberts, Walmart, Deputy Jeremy Buckman, Jill Jenks, and Walmart Parking Lot, but in the section of the complaint labeled 28 defendants, he only lists Walmart Super Stores and Karen Roberts. ECF No. 8 at 1-2. 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court has screened plaintiff’s complaint to 18 ensure that it contains “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 19 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To survive screening, a plaintiff’s claims must be 20 facially plausible, which means that they must contain enough factual detail to allow the court to 21 reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. 22 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). During the screening process, a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 23 as true, but the court is “not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 24 Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 25 The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not enough. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. 26 While courts must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 27 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), the court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it appears 28 1 beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 2 entitle him to relief,” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 3 The bulk of plaintiff’s amended complaint consists of long, hard-to-decipher sentences; it 4 fails to describe any actions taken by any of the defendants. See generally ECF No. 8. For 5 example, plaintiff states, “The developed exposures to ignorant selfish homeless drunkards, drug 6 adicts, wallet theivings stealing all my personal informations I have had for #20 years, the rapes 7 of my abused being has set my PTSD at documented blood presures: 255/133 and reoccuring 8 stroe conditions on March 21, 2023 at the Courthouse where all these misfortunates events 9 consumend my artisan life, that was born in the Belgian Congo, arriving to this country in 1965 as 10 an orphan interacial being overcoming this sinful world with dignities like my ex-employ chieff 11 Navy SEAL chieff petty officer that quit his job working for my #2 man company after we built 12 the Disneyland credit union in 1985 to go and join what I thought was a mistake .. ??” Id. at 4. 13 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and 14 plain statement of his claims and identify a plausible § 1983 claim for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff makes no factual allegations against any of the 16 defendants. See generally ECF No. 8. “The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 17 particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.” See Jones 18 v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). More fundamentally, the complaint is 19 incomprehensible, and I cannot make out the specific claims plaintiff is attempting to allege. 20 Accordingly, plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. Given that plaintiff has already been afforded an 22 opportunity to amend, and that the amended complaint contains the same deficiencies that 23 plagued the initial complaint, I recommend the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to 24 amend. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se 25 complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 26 the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 27 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if 28 1 | acomplaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint 2 | lacks merit entirely.”). 3 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint, ECF No. 8, be dismissed without leave to amend. 5 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 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.” Any response to the 11 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 12 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 14 | v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ April 24, 2023 q_—— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28