(PC) Van Huisen v. United States of America

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY S. VAN HUISEN, No. 2: 24-cv-0018 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

8 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 17 1227.

18 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

22 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.

25 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

4 Plaintiff names over 27 defendants. In addition to the United States, other named defendants include President Biden, former presidents Clinton, Obama and Trump, K. Bieker, Contra Costa County Court Executive Officer, Bill Gates Jr., Janet Yellen, Treasury Department Chair, and Gina Haspel, former director of the CIA. Plaintiff’s claims are largely indecipherable and appear to combine conclusory terms and unrelated phrases and concepts. For example, in his first claim, which is representative of his second and third claims, plaintiff alleges: 10 Tyranny. host header. Color of state law. Civil conspiracy.

Involuntary servitude. Capitol Hill Has Lost All its Equity. We 11 Cannot Expect Anything Worth Its Weight in Value From Them.

Ecclesiastes Chapter III. There Is a Time for Everything Under the 12 Sun. A time to Breakdown And a Time to Restore. In 1914 4 Gold Coin Went Out of Circulation Equivalent to 4 Pound of Silver (In the 13 United Kingdom) (i) Sovereign Matter . . . When Civil Rights Get Violated, We Depreciate in Value. We Go From Gold to Silver, To 14 Copper or Bronze, All the Way Down to a Penny. Then From There We Are The Salt of The Earth, If We lose [Our] Saltiness We Can’t 15 Be Made Salty Again. Mathew 5:13. Jus Descendit Et Non Terra, A Right Descends Not the Land. Serpent, Sodomists, i.e. Sodom and 16 Gomorrah And a Pillar of Salt. Temple, English System of Free Laws. Two English Inns Lincoln and Grey. Civil Rights. Silence is 17 Gold And Speech is Silver. If Someone Takes Away an Inn and Lie.

Do nothing Gold or Silence is the Enemy. We Have to Speak, A Call 18 For Action. Concise.

19 [Injury:] Genetically Engineered, or Minority to Withstand Despotism and Tyranny! IIED, Implied Malice, and Outrage Caused 20 By Those Less Fortunate. Lost Leader. president of the United States, Joseph R. Biden. Color of State Law. . . an Evil Dictator, 21 Usurpation - i.e. Involuntary Sodomy. Concise.

22 (ECF No. 1 at 9.)

23 Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible, lacks substance, contains no specific charging allegations as to each defendant, and fails to identify how any named defendant violated plaintiff’s federal statutory or constitutional rights. As written, the complaint fails to state a potentially cognizable federal claim. Although it is unlikely that plaintiff can cure the pleading defects, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend in an abundance of caution.

28 //// 1 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 7 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

10 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

21 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

26 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

27 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: ] a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 2 b. An original of the Amended Complaint.

3 || Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”

6 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the || dismissal of this action.

8 Dated: January 8, 2024 Foci) Aharon 10 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] /vanh0018.14 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY S. VAN HUISEN, No. 2: 24-cv-0018 KJN P Plaintiff, v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order filed______________.

18 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: 20 ________________________________ Plaintiff