(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store ( 2022 )

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-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 WALMART SUPER STORE, et al., ECF No. 2 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, OR 17 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 ECF No. 1 19 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against Walmart Super Store and 22 attorney Karen Roberts, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His 23 complaint, however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint 24 before recommending dismissal. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, 25 ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 26 Screening and Pleading Requirements 27 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 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 The complaint’s allegations, which are minimal, are difficult to decipher. See generally 18 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff appears to allege that the Missouri Flat Walmart Store hosted people 19 impacted by the Caldor Fire in the store’s parking lot. Id. at 4. He claims that the El Dorado 20 Sheriff’s Department arrested him for trespassing there and that the Walmart team engaged in 21 wrongful actions that created “solitaire conditions” for one day. Id. He also alleges that he did 22 not have “prescribed medication” from his doctors. Id. 23 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and 24 plain statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As an initial matter, plaintiff names 25 Karen Roberts as a defendant, but asserts no facts relating to her.1 Moreover, plaintiff’s 26 27 1 Plaintiff additionally alleges that “District Attorneys Office, Kassie Cardullo, Y. Flores, and Miss Griffiths., VernnPiercve” engaged in “repeated abuses,” but he does not explain these 28 abuses or name these individuals as defendants. ECF No. 1 at 4. 1 | allegations against Walmart do not identify any actions taken by Walmart that could support a 2 | claim for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The 3 | plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants 4 | engaged in that support the plaintiff's claim.”). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 5 | particularity overt acts of defendants that support his claims. Jd. 6 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this 7 | action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 8 | will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 9 | Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 10 | without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 11 | complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 12 | complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 13 | defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended 14 | Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended 15 | complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 16 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 18 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 19 | amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 20 | the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 21 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form complaint. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ( q oy — Dated: _ December 21, 2022 Q_-——_ 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28