(PC) Van Huisen v. DEA

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 GREGORY S. VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-1116 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, et al., [15] Defendants. [17] 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . This 20 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 26 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 27 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 28 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 5 Screening Standards 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 13 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, [15] 490 U.S. at 327 . The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 16 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 17 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 18 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 19 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 20 1227. 21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 25 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 26 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 27 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555 . 28 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 1 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555 , citations and internal 3 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 4 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 , and construe the 5 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 236 6 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 7 The Civil Rights Act 8 To prevail on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a 9 federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person 10 acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. 11 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil 12 rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional 13 deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged 14 constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. 15 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the 16 theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. 17 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a 18 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be 19 established in a number of ways, including by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable 20 action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates was a cause of 21 plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). 22 Discussion 23 Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible. Plaintiff names as defendants a number of 24 federal narcotics agents, confidential informants, and DEA informants, but then references a 25 number of different causes of action, all in conclusory format without any factual support, from 26 civil RICO, conspiracy, divorce, taking of property, retaliation, threat to safety, and insurrection, 27 and claims his injuries include loss of real property and attempted manslaughter. 28 //// 1 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 2 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 3 court determines that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and does not adequately identify a constitutional injury. Although the 5 Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the 6 elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646 , 649 7 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which 8 defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff failed to comply with 9 the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, 10 however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 11 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 12 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 13 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 14 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 15 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 16 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371 ; May v. Enomoto, 633 17 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 18 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 , 19 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Simply listing a series of alleged violations is insufficient. 20 Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. 21 See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a 22 simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 8. In other words, plaintiff must set forth what each defendant did that allegedly 24 violated plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff must not include any arguments, explanations, evidence, 25 summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming 26 dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, [27] 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil 28 Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read 1 and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 . A long, 2 rambling pleading including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible 3 connection to the alleged constitutional injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against 4 many defendants,1 very likely will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 5 an order dismissing plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these 6 instructions. 7 A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim 8 and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an 9 opportunity to cure them. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31 . While detailed factual allegations are 10 not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 12 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 13 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 14 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570 ). 15 A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 16 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for 17 more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a 18 defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. [19] 20 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions 21 //// [22] 1 A plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 18. 23 In addition, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action where “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the 24 same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated [25] claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only to prevent the sort of morass [a [26] multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the 27 required filing fees -- for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(g).” George, 507 F.3d at 607 . 1 can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are 2 not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 3 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 4 Local Rule 220; See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 5 (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non6 existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 7 pleading is superseded. 8 Subsequent Filings 9 Since the filing of his complaint, plaintiff has written several letters to the court, enclosing 10 various documents. (ECF Nos. 6, 9, 10.) Plaintiff is advised that the court is not a repository for 11 evidence. Plaintiff must retain any evidentiary documents until it is appropriate to submit such 12 evidence in connection with a pending motion or at trial. 13 On June 26 and 28, 2023, plaintiff filed motions to add defendants. (ECF No. 12.) 14 Plaintiff is advised that such motions are insufficient. Plaintiff cannot add a defendant by simply 15 filing a letter to the clerk and requesting a defendant be added.2 Generally, plaintiff must file a 16 motion to amend the pleading to include the new defendant and comply with Rule 15 of the 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, because plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, 18 plaintiff must append a proposed amended complaint including the new defendant and the new 19 allegations. Because the court is dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, he may include a new 20 defendant in his proposed amended complaint filed in response to this order. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 7) are granted. 23 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 24 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the [26] 2 Plaintiff has repeatedly filed documents bearing more than one case number. (ECF Nos. 6, 10, 27 12.) Plaintiff should refrain from filing one document containing more than one case number. Plaintiff should file one document for each of his pending cases so the record is clear to which 28 case the filing is directed. 1 | Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 2 | herewith. 3 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 4 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 5 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 6 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 7 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 8 | Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 9 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 10 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 11 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 12 || dismissal of this action. 13 5. Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 12, 13) are denied without prejudice. 14 | Dated: June 30, 2023 Aectl Aharon 16 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [17] 18 jvanni116.14n [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] GREGORY R. VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-1116 KJN P [11] Plaintiff, [12] v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT [13] DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, et 14 al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 18 filed______________. 19 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: [20] 21 ________________________________ Plaintiff