Opinion
2:21-cv-01452-TLN-JDP (PC)
12-06-2023
JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, Plaintiff, v. TERESA LUA, Defendant.
ORDER DISCHARGING THE JUNE 12, 2023 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ECF NO. 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND ECF NO. 19
JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Jean Marc Van den Heuvel alleges in his second amended complaint that Dr. Carl Hillendhal and Teresa Lua killed his service dog, Toby. His complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed as frivolous. I will discharge the June 12, 2023 order to show cause.
Screening and Pleading Requirements
A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”-a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
The court must construe a pro se litigant's complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant's complaint “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.'” Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Analysis
The complaint names two defendants-Dr. Carl Hillendhal and Teresa Lua-but it is nearly devoid of factual allegations against either. ECF No. 19. The only mention of defendant Lua is incoherent: “[t]his case the ‘killings' of my beloved stroke service dog,not only was iy intent,by ignorances by Teresa Lua,but fabrications of ‘justified arguments,like attorneys use' were implanted by early justified. . . .” Id. at 3. And the complaint makes no reference to defendant Hillendhal. Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts of defendants that support his claims. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff's claim.”).
The complaint refers to a variety of individuals and situations, but the court is unable to discern any cause of action associated with either defendant. See ECF No. 19 at 1-5. Plaintiff has attached several documents to the complaint, including medical reports from 2014 and documents from an El Dorado County state court proceeding. Id. at 6-21. But plaintiff makes no allegations that connect the attachments to a cause of action.
The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8's requirement that it present a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). And it contains no facts to support any cognizable legal claim against either defendant.
The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Given the complaint's allegations, I find that granting plaintiff an opportunity to amend would not cure its deficiencies, and so I recommend that dismissal be without leave to amend. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiff is no stranger to this court, having filed forty cases in this district in the past ten years. Several of plaintiff's prior complaints resemble in some ways the instant complaint, and none have survived screening. See Van Den Heuvel v. A.M.P.M. Mini Mart, 2:23cv752-TLN-AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2023) (dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim); Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store, 2:22-cv-249-DJC-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2023) (same); Van Den Heuvel v. Kathy McMillian, 2:22-cv-2292-DAD-CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2023) (same).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the June 12, 2023 order to show cause, ECF No. 18, is discharged.
Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint, ECF No. 19, be dismissed without leave to amend.
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.