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, No. 2:24-cv-00835-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOLD KEY STORAGE, et al., 15
Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned by Local 19 Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. Plaintiff seeks leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915. The request is granted. 22 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 27 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 1 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 2 baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 3 See Id. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th 4 Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 5 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 6 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Scheuer 7 v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than 8 those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need 9 not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of 10 fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation 11 of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 14 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 15 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 16 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 17 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT 18 The complaint names Gold Key Storage, Placerville Self Storage, and attorney Reich as 19 defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The brief factual allegations are largely indiscernible, but plaintiff 20 alleges “prejudicial acts,” conversion of personal property, embezzlement, theft, and “massive 21 injuries[.]” (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 4.) 22 III. THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED 23 A. Failure to Comply with Rule 8 24 The complaint fails to allege a “plain statement of the claim” in a “simple, concise, and 25 direct” manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(1). In order to give fair notice of the claims and the 26 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt 27 acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 28 (9th Cir. 1996). 1 Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the pleading standard. The court is unable to discern 2 what acts the defendants took which support the claim or claims plaintiff intends to bring. The 3 complaint is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 4 (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being 5 sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 6 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 7 The complaint asserts a federal question exists as the basis for this court’s jurisdiction. 8 However, the complaint fails to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 9 Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 10 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ 11 federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a 12 right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party 13 of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. 14 Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). A federal question exists if: (1) federal 15 law creates the cause of action, or (2) a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element 16 of a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. See Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Hawks, 933 F.3d 1052, 1055 17 (9th Cir. 2019). 18 Allegations of conversion do not present a federal question. See Chilkat Indian Vill. v. 19 Johnson, 870 F.2d 1469, 1472 (9th Cir. 1989) (claims for conversion of artifacts brought by 20 Indian village did not arise under federal law for federal jurisdiction purposes). The complaint 21 does not plead a federal claim based on federal law and does not present any substantial federal 22 question. Plaintiff has not identified an independent grant of jurisdiction conferring access to this 23 forum. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters set forth in the complaint. 24 C. No Leave to Amend 25 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the court considers that this is 26 not the first suit plaintiff has initiated in this court against Placerville Self Storage or against 27 attorney Reich and prior opportunities to amend have been unsuccessful. See Heuvel v. 28 Placerville Self Storage, No. 2:19-CV-01418-MCE-CKD-PS, 2020 WL 569421, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 1 Feb.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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, No. 2:24-cv-00835-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOLD KEY STORAGE, et al., 15
Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned by Local 19 Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. Plaintiff seeks leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915. The request is granted. 22 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 27 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 1 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 2 baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 3 See Id. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th 4 Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 5 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 6 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Scheuer 7 v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than 8 those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need 9 not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of 10 fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation 11 of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 14 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 15 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 16 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 17 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT 18 The complaint names Gold Key Storage, Placerville Self Storage, and attorney Reich as 19 defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The brief factual allegations are largely indiscernible, but plaintiff 20 alleges “prejudicial acts,” conversion of personal property, embezzlement, theft, and “massive 21 injuries[.]” (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 4.) 22 III. THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED 23 A. Failure to Comply with Rule 8 24 The complaint fails to allege a “plain statement of the claim” in a “simple, concise, and 25 direct” manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(1). In order to give fair notice of the claims and the 26 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt 27 acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 28 (9th Cir. 1996). 1 Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the pleading standard. The court is unable to discern 2 what acts the defendants took which support the claim or claims plaintiff intends to bring. The 3 complaint is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 4 (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being 5 sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 6 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 7 The complaint asserts a federal question exists as the basis for this court’s jurisdiction. 8 However, the complaint fails to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 9 Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 10 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ 11 federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a 12 right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party 13 of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. 14 Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). A federal question exists if: (1) federal 15 law creates the cause of action, or (2) a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element 16 of a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. See Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Hawks, 933 F.3d 1052, 1055 17 (9th Cir. 2019). 18 Allegations of conversion do not present a federal question. See Chilkat Indian Vill. v. 19 Johnson, 870 F.2d 1469, 1472 (9th Cir. 1989) (claims for conversion of artifacts brought by 20 Indian village did not arise under federal law for federal jurisdiction purposes). The complaint 21 does not plead a federal claim based on federal law and does not present any substantial federal 22 question. Plaintiff has not identified an independent grant of jurisdiction conferring access to this 23 forum. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters set forth in the complaint. 24 C. No Leave to Amend 25 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the court considers that this is 26 not the first suit plaintiff has initiated in this court against Placerville Self Storage or against 27 attorney Reich and prior opportunities to amend have been unsuccessful. See Heuvel v. 28 Placerville Self Storage, No. 2:19-CV-01418-MCE-CKD-PS, 2020 WL 569421, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 1 Feb. 5, 2020) (recommending complaint be dismissed and case be closed after three opportunities 2 to amend claims against storage company and other defendants), report and recommendation 3 adopted sub nom. Van Den Heuvel v. Placerville Self Storage, No. 2:19-CV-01418-MCE-CKD- 4 PS, 2020 WL 1157729 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020); Van Den Heuvel v. Reich, No. 2:23-CV-1213- 5 KJM-DB-PS, 2024 WL 1257363, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2024) (recommending dismissal of 6 complaint alleging “actions of conversions of property by Laura Reich” after an unsuccessful 7 opportunity to amend). 8 Like each complaint in the cases cited above, plaintiff’s current complaint does not 9 present a cogent, non-frivolous claim. In light of the nature of the deficiencies in the allegations, 10 the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiff’s prior opportunities to amend in the 11 cases cited above brought against the same defendants, it clearly appears granting leave to amend 12 would be futile. The complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. See Cato v. United 13 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 14 2000) (en banc). 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in 17 forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 18 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without leave to 19 amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 21 days after 22 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 23 the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 | (9th Cir. 1991). Card ht fa he 4 || Dated: May 13, 2024 CAROLYNK. DELANEY? 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8, vand24cv0835.scrn.fr 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28