Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01418/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01418-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 400
Nature of Suit: State Reapportionment
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.

PLACERVILLE SELF STORAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01418-MCE-CKD PS

ORDER

On November 14, 2019, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based 

on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s previous order and failure to prosecute this case. 

(ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given 14 days from the date of the order to file a first amended 

complaint in compliance with the court’s October 3, 2019 order. (Id.; see also ECF No. 6.) 

On December 2, 2019, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was filed. (ECF No. 9.) On 

December 10, 2019, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended complaint and 

granting plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.) On December 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) On December 30, 2019, plaintiff filed another complaint, 

which the court will address as plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.)

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is very similar to his original complaint and names 

the same defendants: Placerville Self Storage (located in Placerville, California), Steven Rawson 

Case 2:19-cv-01418-MCE-CKD Document 14 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 5
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

(located in Ammon, Idaho), Robert C. Bowman (located in Sacramento, California), Kassie 

Cardullo (located in Placerville, California), Vern Pierce (location unknown), Judge Kenneth J. 

Melikian (Superior Court of the County of El Dorado), and Judge Warren C. Strancener (Superior 

Court of the County of El Dorado).

As the basis for jurisdiction, plaintiff again claims he is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). (ECF No. 13 at 3.)

The first five pages of the second amended complaint are identical to the prior complaint 

the court previously dismissed. The court will therefore repeat its summary from its prior order:

Although difficult to understand, it appears plaintiff complains about 

property he owned that was wrongfully placed in Placerville Self 

Storage by Steven Rawson, a landlord. (ECF No. [13] at 4.) Plaintiff 

claims “massive injuries” and cites what appears to be another 

litigation matter, Heckart v. Self Storage, Inc., as well as California 

state causes of action for violations of the California Consumers 

Legal Remedies Act (CAL. CIV. CODE § 1750), negligent 

misrepresentations, and civil conspiracies. (Id.) According to the 

complaint, an unnamed party, Rich Tyler, unlawfully gained access 

to plaintiff’s property located in the storage unit. (Id. (citing a 

number of California Insurance Code sections).) 

In support of his Bivens claim(s), plaintiff alleges as follows. “The 

officials District Attorneys are accountable by the government civil 

rights violations” and a judge should be held accountable for 

“conclusive decisions to move forward, and intently [prosecute], and 

falsely hold accountable inmate #132049 John Mark Van den 

Heuvel, A.K.A. artisan Jean Marc Van den Heuvel to face the harsh

‘FELONY’ charges that would never be removed off the police 

records, as of today, November 25, 2019 the felony still in records.” 

(Id. at 5.) . . . 

Plaintiff also complains about an unlawful detainer matter involving 

unnamed party Rodger Musso, an individual who apparently owned 

plaintiff’s prior residence. (Id. at 5.)

Regarding Judge Kenneth J. Melikian, plaintiff alleges that he and 

other judges have exercised “abusive powers, onto the unsuspecting 

handicapped persons placed before them in their mutual El Dorado 

County Courts.” (Id. at 5.) 

(ECF No. 11.)

Next, plaintiff appears to allege he had a stroke that led to paralysis and Placerville Self 

Storage eventually seized plaintiff’s property. (ECF No. 13 at 7.) The remaining allegations, 

Case 2:19-cv-01418-MCE-CKD Document 14 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 5
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

while difficult to follow, appear to focus on plaintiff’s injuries and the property he allegedly lost. 

(Id. at 7–9.)

As with before, plaintiff appears to be complaining about three separate incidents: (1) the 

taking of his personal property from a storage unit; (2) a criminal matter from May 2017; and 

(3) an unlawful detainer action.

The allegations in the first amended complaint are again insufficient to identify any 

conceivable federal claim. Plaintiff’s conclusory references to Bivens, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 do not establish that any of his claims are federal claims.

Further, to the extent plaintiff attempts to assert diversity of citizenship as the basis for 

this court’s jurisdiction, he again cannot establish that this suit arises under diversity of 

citizenship given that plaintiff pleads that he and at least one defendant are citizens of California. 

(See ECF No. 6 at 2–3 (citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 

(1989).) 

As with plaintiff’s original and first amended complaints, the court finds the allegations in 

plaintiff’s second amended 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 has determined 

that the first amended 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 

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

degree of particularity overt acts which each named defendant 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 second amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file a

third amended complaint.

However, if plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint again, plaintiff must set forth the 

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 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).

Case 2:19-cv-01418-MCE-CKD Document 14 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Further, the court will repeat the legal standard regarding named defendants Judge 

Kenneth J. Melikian and Judge Warren C. Strancener. Plaintiff is again informed that “[j]udges 

are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. . . . 

Judicial immunity applies ‘however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in 

its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.’” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 

(9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199–200 (1985)). It appears 

plaintiff seeks monetary relief from both state court judges for actions taken within their 

jurisdiction—handling an unlawful detainer and/or criminal matter. Such actions are 

quintessential examples of judicial acts. Therefore, the defendant judges are immune from this 

suit, “however erroneous the act[s] may have been.” Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075. Plaintiff’s 

proper course of action to redress any alleged erroneous rulings by the defendant judges was to 

address those rulings in state court. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he attempts to bring claims 

against Judge Kenneth J. Melikian and Judge Warren C. Strancener, the undersigned will 

recommend dismissal of the judges without leave to amend.

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 a third amended complaint, the prior complaints 

no longer serve 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. 

Finally, plaintiff is again informed that unrelated claims against different defendants must 

be pursued in separate lawsuits. Here, plaintiff again appears to assert claims regarding three 

unrelated incidents and names several different defendants in the process. To the extent they are 

unrelated, plaintiff is again cautioned that they belong in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

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

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 13) is dismissed; and 

Case 2:19-cv-01418-MCE-CKD Document 14 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a third

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and the Local Rules of Practice; the third amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint;” plaintiff must file an 

original and two copies of the third amended complaint; failure to file a third amended complaint 

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

Dated: January 15, 2020

15 heuvel1518.sac.lta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01418-MCE-CKD Document 14 Filed 01/15/20 Page 5 of 5