1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-2448 DJC DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BARACK OBAMA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Presently before the court are plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 19 2, 7, 10) and his complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth below the court 20 will grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and that the complaint be dismissed 21 with leave to amend. 22 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 23 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by

1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 25 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action.

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 27 accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 28 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 1 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 2 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 3 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 4 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full.

1915(b)(2). 6 SCREENING 7 I. Legal Standards 8 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 9 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 11 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 12 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 14 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 15 Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th 16 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 17 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 18

. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 19 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin,

. 20 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 22 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 23 Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

(1957)). 24 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 25 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 26 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 27

. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 28 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,

(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 2 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen,

(1969). 3 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 4 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 5 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 6 or other proper proceeding for redress. 7

. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 8 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 9 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs.,

(1978); Rizzo v. Goode,

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 11 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 12 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 13 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy,

(9th Cir. 1978). 14 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 15 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 16 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 17 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley,

(9th Cir. 1979); 18 Mosher v. Saalfeld,

(9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 19 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 20 Ivey v. Board of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982). 21 II. Allegations in the Complaint 22 Plaintiff claims the events giving rise to his claims occurred while he was incarcerated at 23 the Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). (ECF No. 1 at 1.) He names as defendants Barack 24 Obama, USAF, John Doe (Kansas), and John Doe (Oklahoma). (Id.) Plaintiff characterizes his 25 claims as the following violations, Eighth Amendment violations, Due Process violations, loss of 26 Equity of Live[sic], Jus Ad Rem/Inchoate Crimes, Tolling Isaiah 59:5, and “to live honorably, to 27 hurt nobody [and] render everyone, his duz”. (Id. at 2-5.) Plaintiff’s first count asserts that 28 defendant Obama and his estate “hatch eggs & weave the spiders web, fluid from which is 1 crushed a vapor beacons out.” (Id. at 3.) To support his second count Plaintiff asserts that there 2 is no legitimate penological interest and the actions of imprisoning him put him in jeopardy. (Id. 3 at 4.) Then, to support his third count plaintiff discusses his repeated petitions have only been 4 answered by repeated injury. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages. 5 (Id at 7.) 6 III. Does Plaintiff State a Claim under § 1983? 7 “[T]he in forma pauperis statute . . . ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a 8 claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the 9 veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are 10 clearly baseless.’” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke,

327). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims 12 with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke,

. Allegations that 13 are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional give rise to claims that are factually frivolous. Denton, 504 14 U.S. at 32-33 (citing Neitzke,

). The district court is therefore authorized 15 to make a finding of factual frivolousness “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational 16 or the wholly incredible.” Denton,

. 17 In the present case, plaintiff’s allegations are largely incoherent and read as a list of 18 conclusory terms and winding phrases strung together. For example, Count I, which is 19 representative of the remaining counts alleged in this action, read as follows: On Defendant #1, Barack Obama Autre Vie, His Estate. See Isaiah 20 59:5, They Hatch Eggs & Weave The Spiders Web, Fluid From That 21 Which is Crushed A Vabor Beacons Out. On Defendant #2, USAF X 2 John Doe’s. Autrie Vie on 370 Spanish Spur FaceBrook CA 22 92028. Coercion, Disparate Impact, Civil Conspiracy. There is a Teen for Endangering A Plaintiff’s Family of Depriving Them of 23 Their Rights Through The Liability of The Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Violation. In This Case Implied Malice Had Vicarious Liability. This 24 Address is my Mothers Estate. Due Process Violations Prior To 25 Incarceration, Then 8th Amendment While incarcerated, SIC. No legitimate Penological Goal in Mind. Considence Game, Sic. Civil 26 Rico, Sic. USAF Imoral Contact – Vexation By Spirit. Implied Malice. Note: Equitable Tolling, Dispensation, At The Turn of this 27 mellenium, Century, And Decade. Revolutionary for Crossing the Bridge From one Generation To The Next. Consider Juncta Juant 28 1 Nullum Simile Est Idemnisi Quator Pedibus Cullit. “ No Like is Identical Unless it Runs on All Fours. Consider Equitable Tolling & 2 Four Cormers Dispensation. Revolutionary, Revival & Refresh off Going Crops, Next Friend. Bascillia/ Abridgment Conilliation. Time 3 Apportioned Also Election Coutest in The Light of Van Huisen Vs 4 House of Representatives 2:23001869 [illegible] Case of Ist Impression. U.S. Court, Eastern District, Indispensable Party. 5 (Id. at 3.) The complaint is largely incomprehensible, lacks substance and fails to specify how a 6 particular defendant was involved in the violation of plaintiff’s federal, statutory, or constitutional 7 rights. As currently written, the complaint presents no cognizable federal claim. 8 A complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim cannot survive screening 9 under section 1915A(b) and must be dismissed. A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise 10 to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable 11 facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992); see also 12 Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (holding that “§ 1915(d)’s term ‘frivolous,’ when 13 applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful 14 factual allegation.”). Plaintiff’s allegations are indecipherable and, as currently written, frivolous. 15 In an abundance of caution, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint 16 to cure the deficiencies. 17 IV. Amending the Complaint 18 As set forth above, the first amended complaint fails to state a potentially cognizable 19 claim. However, plaintiff will be given the option to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is 20 advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that 21 defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required to review exhibits 22 to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named defendant. The charging 23 allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of the 24 claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support 25 of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 8(a). 27 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 28 1 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 2 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 3 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 4 Johnson v. Duffy,

(9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation 5 of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act 6 he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 7 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 10 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 11 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara,

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 13 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 15 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 16 N.A.,

(2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 17 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 18 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 19 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all prior pleadings are superseded. 20 Any amended complaint should contain all of the allegations related to his claim in this action. If 21 plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims against the defendant, they must be set forth in the amended 22 complaint. 23 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 24 has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 25 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 26 V. Conclusion 27 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 1 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 2 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order 4 to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 5 concurrently herewith; 6 3. Plaintiffs additional motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 7 and 7 10) are denied as moot; 8 4. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend; 9 5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 10 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 11 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint 12 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second 13 Amended Complaint”; and 14 6. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 15 dismissed. 16 | Dated: March 22, 2024 17 18 19 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 DLB:16 24 || DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/vanh.2448.sern 25 26 27 28