Van Huisen v. Lafrades

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, Case No. 23-cv-04800-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 9 10 ERIC LAFRADES, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Gregory Van Huisen, an inmate at the Mule Creek State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 14 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend 15 and provided detailed instructions on how to amend. Dkt. No. 6. After two extensions of time, Mr. 16 Van Huisen filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 10.1 17 Mr. Van Huisen’s amended complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A. The amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend because it does not state a 19 claim for relief. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Under “Statement of Claim,” Mr. Van Huisen writes the following:

22 Dishonor/protest; civil disobedience – the dishonor was undue 23 influence/ unlawful activity. Such as: A petty bag office or amount of cash approximately $37,500, same and similiak to Hamans plot to 24 destroy the jews (Esther 3:10) and the amount he offered. The Hatch Act – concise. See Isaiah 59.5. Interpose/ Serpent. The money was 25 given to me at 620 West 11th St. Antioch CA 94509. My residence! The money was returned back to Mr. Lafrades. Tainted loot. Money 26

27 1 The Court granted one extension of time. Dkt. No. 8. Mr. Van Huisen moved for a second endorses entrapment and a immoral contract. Constituting outlawry. 1 Wicked and evil intent in a plan to overthrow the United States 2 government. Dissolution. Mania. See Van Huisen vs. H.O.R. A case of 1st impression ships on the horizon – (2:24-cv-00246KJN(P)) the 3 Nina; a separate but equal station. 4 Am. Compl. at 3. 5 When prompted to request specific relief, Mr. Van Huisen writes the following:

6 Defendants actions, venom – the Hatch Act Isaiah 59.5 were motivated by evil intent. Defendant is not named in any other suit 7 except Van Huisen v. USA, et al 27 Defendants. Constructive treason, 8 a sovereign offense. If he is a paid DEA I am suing him in his official capacity of r $27,000,000.00 9 Id. 10 II. Legal Standard 11 Federal courts must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 12 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 13 identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 14 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such 15 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. 16 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 17 III. Analysis 18 The Court identified the deficiencies in Mr. Van Huisen’s original complaint and provided 19 clear guidance on how to remedy those deficiencies. See Dkt. No. 6, at 2. Despite that guidance, 20 Mr. Van Huisen again does not state any claim for relief. See generally Am. Compl. 21 Although district courts generally afford prisoner litigants the opportunity to amend their 22 complaint, a district court may deny leave to amend if it finds any of: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue 23 delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; [or] (5) [the] plaintiff has 24 previously amended his complaint.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 25 1990). Here, Mr. Van Huisen was given an opportunity and detailed instructions on how to amend 26 but still did not state a cognizable claim for relief. Compare Dkt. No. 6 with Am. Compl. The 27 Court concludes that further leave to amend would be futile and should not be granted. Janicki ] Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (leave to amend need not be given where 2 || amendment would be futile). 3 IV. Conclusion 4 This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 5 Because amendment would be futile, dismissal is without leave to amend. 6 The Clerk shall close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 7, 2024 May 10 P. Casey Pitts 11 United States District Judge a 12

15 16

© 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 ? For Mr. Van Huisen’s benefit, the Court notes that its dismissal means he cannot proceed on these claims and facts. If Mr. Van Huisen re-files the same claims in a new action, on the same 28 facts, that action also will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Every dismissal for failure to state a claim is a “strike” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.