(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Lua

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, Case No. 2:21-cv-01452-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. ECF No. 1 TERESA LUA, et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 Defendants. PAUPERIS 16 ECF Nos. 2, 5 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 20 ORDER 21 Plaintiff moves to proceed without prepayment of filing fees. ECF Nos. 2, 5. Plaintiff’s affidavit satisfies the requirements to proceed in such manner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Thus, the motions, ECF Nos. 2 & 5, are granted.

24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 Having granted plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis, the first amended complaint is now subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss any action filed in forma pauperis that is frivolous, malicious, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

3 Plaintiff Jean Marc Van Den Heuvel seeks damages related to the loss of his seventeen- year-old emotional support dog, Toby. ECF No. 5 at 6. Defendant Teresa Lua, a dental hygienist, hit Toby with her car, killing him. Id. Plaintiff claims that a dentist with whom Lua works, Dr. Carl Hillendhal, bears some responsibility; he is named as a second defendant. Id. 7 Plaintiff’s circumstances do not give rise to a federal claim. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, diversity jurisdiction does not exist; all parties are from the state of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2006). And there is no federal question jurisdiction because no federal law is identified as applicable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff may wish to seek relief in state court. Plaintiff attaches a section of the California Penal Code to the complaint, which may indicate an attempt to have crimes investigated and criminal charges brought against defendants.

15 ECF No. 4 at 13-14. Citizens cannot bring criminal charges or compel a governmental body to bring criminal charges. Further, “criminal statutes . . . do not give rise to civil liability.” Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Leave to amend would be futile.

19 Accordingly, it is recommended that plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

21 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Plaintiff may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court.

25 Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

| 1718 SO ORDERED.

3 ( — Dated: __April 12, 2022 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ul