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. 2:24-cv-01026-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 OFFICE MAX, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 16 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 17 ECF Nos. 1 & 2 18 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 Plaintiff proceeds pro se against defendants Office Max and Office Depot, but his 21 complaint is incomprehensible. The allegations are unintelligible and bereft of substance, and I 22 find it would be futile to offer plaintiff an opportunity to amend. I will grant his application to 23 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2), and recommend that this action be dismissed. 25 Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 27 in forma pauperis. See

(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 28 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.

3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,

, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Office Max and Office Depot. His 22 allegations, however, are incomprehensible. He claims that the Placerville police department 23 “trespass[ed] a stroke survivor” and that, on August 10, 2014, a destructive “stroke” destroyed an 24 artist’s life. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. I cannot tell how these allegations present a federal question or 25 how they relate to the named defendants. At a more basic level, I cannot piece together what 26 injury or injuries plaintiff is alleging. Absent some indication that there is some cognizable claim 27 here, I find that it would be futile to afford plaintiff an opportunity to amend this complaint. If 28 plaintiff has a viable claim to present against these defendants, he may note as much in objections 1 | to these recommendations. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma 3 | pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 4 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to state a 5 | cognizable claim. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 8 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 9 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 10 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 11 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 12 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 13 | Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 14 | 1991). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ August 27, 2024 Q_——_ 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28