Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00352/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00352-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDDIE FREAS et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00352-TLN-CKD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The court previously granted plaintiff’s 

request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 

(ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has also 

filed a “Notice Re Forgery.” (ECF No. 6.)

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

Case 2:20-cv-00352-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

490 U.S. at 327. 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Here, plaintiff asserts that the court has federal question jurisdiction over his claims. 

Although not entirely clear, it appears that plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges that a bench 

warrant was issued in a proceeding in state court and was somehow mishandled. (ECF No. 5 at 

3). It appears that plaintiff is attempting to allege claims premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

deprivation of his constitutional rights. However, plaintiff directs the court to no statute, treaty, 

or Constitutional provision that would vest this court with federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff 

does not set forth what rights were violated or provide the court with a short plain statement as to 

how these rights were violated. To the extent that plaintiff cites the ADA, plaintiff does not 

provide any explanation of how any defendants’ action resulted in a violation of the ADA, or 

what portion of the ADA was violated. 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 

court finds that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must 

give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community 

Case 2:20-cv-00352-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some 

degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. 

Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the 

complaint must be dismissed. Although this is the second complaint plaintiff has filed, and the 

court has considered whether to recommend dismissal, the court grants plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the jurisdictional 

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Further, plaintiff must 

demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal 

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date this order to file an amended complaint 

that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules 

of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be 

labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: May 13, 2020

16.352.ifp lta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00352-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 05/13/20 Page 3 of 3