(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Cissna

Opinion

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:21-cv-01342 KJM CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CISSNA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. Both his original and amended complaint were dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF Nos. 5, 15.) Plaintiff promptly filed three more complaints, labeled the Second, Third, and Fourth Amended Complaints, respectively. As the last-filed amended complaint supersedes the others, before the court is plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The FAC names one defendant: “Deputy Potter,” a bailiff at the El Dorado County courthouse. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a stroke in August 2014 and that, despite having a handicap parking license plate, he was made to park far away from the courthouse. (ECF No. 20 at 6.) He alleges that he was told to move the 1995 pickup truck that serves as his home. (Id.) ] In two separate orders, plaintiff was advised of the standards for pleading a federal claim. (ECF No. 5, 15.) The FAC does not cure the pleading deficiencies evident in the original complaint or the amended complaint. Most basically, plaintiff fails to demonstrate how the conduct of defendant resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs’ federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Like the prior complaints, the FAC is too vague and conclusory to state a claim. Despite two opportunities to cure the deficiencies in his complaints, plaintiff has failed to doso. Moreover, it appears that further amendment would be futile. Thus the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 25, 2022 / □□□ / 4 ly a CAROLYNK. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2/vanden1342.failtocure f&rs