Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01698/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01698-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 HUEVEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHOENIX SINCLAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1698-KJM-KJN PS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 10, 2015, plaintiff Jean Marc Van Den Heuvel, proceeding in this action 

without counsel, filed his complaint along with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)1 Plaintiff’s complaint consists of multiple form 

complaints and letters which, when liberally construed, appear to allege that plaintiff visited

defendant Shingle Springs Tribal Wellness Clinic on September 13, 2013, where he received 

dental care from defendant Phoenix Sinclair, D.D.S. and other employees. (See generally, ECF 

Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2.) Plaintiff further alleges defendant Sinclair and other “staff” performed a “rear 

molar #3 root canal” on plaintiff that went “horrifically wrong” and that Sinclair acted 

“incompetent[ly]” and was “distracted” during the procedure because he was “flirting” with his 

assistants and having “discussions on [k]iller babqued [sic] hamburgers stuffed with cheese.” 

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-01698-TLN-EFB Document 5 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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

(ECF No. 1 at 1, 4.) Plaintiff alleges that he later had to seek further dental work in order to 

repair the damage to his tooth, ultimately resulting in the tooth being completely extracted, which 

caused plaintiff “painful bone loss and irritation.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff also refers in his complaint to another action he previously filed in this court as 

being “related” to the present case. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1 (referencing case number 2:14-cv-1555-

TLN-EFB PS as a “related case”).) A review of the complaint in the referenced action reveals 

that plaintiff brought a claim against defendant Shingle Springs Tribal Wellness Clinic based on 

alleged conduct extraordinarily similar to the conduct alleged in the instant action. Indeed, the 

only major differences between the allegations in the previous action and those here are that 

plaintiff did not identify the dentist or other employee(s) at Shingle Springs Tribal Wellness 

Clinic who performed the alleged defective dental work in the prior action, included some 

additional factual details regarding the performance of the allegedly defective dental work in this 

action, and that the alleged dental work took place on August 29, 2013, in the previous action, but 

took place on September 13, 2013, in the present action. 

While the discrepancy in the alleged dates of injury would ordinarily indicate that injury 

alleged here arose from a different transaction or occurrence than that alleged in the prior action, 

the court is particularly concerned that this is not the situation here because plaintiff also filed in 

the previous action the exact document comprising the majority of his complaint in the present 

action, which indicates that the alleged injury in the prior action occurred on September 13, 2013, 

the same date alleged in the present action. Furthermore, in one of the documents comprising the 

complaint in this action, styled a letter to the court, plaintiff states in the “subject” line that this 

action is a “New Case; same claim” and discusses the fact that his filing this action is in response 

to the dismissal of his prior action. (ECF No. 1-2.) Given these facts, the court has grave 

concerns that the claims plaintiff asserts in this action may be precluded by the dismissal of 

plaintiff’s claim in the previous action. However, it cannot properly ascertain at this time whether 

plaintiff’s claims are actually precluded without additional clarification.

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-01698-TLN-EFB Document 5 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Accordingly, given the court’s serious concern that plaintiff’s claims here are barred by 

the doctrine of claim preclusion, and in the interest of preserving scarce judicial resources, the 

court declines to screen plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 at this juncture. 

Instead, the court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing explaining: (1) whether the 

claims asserted in the present action are based on the same facts (i.e., the same dental work) 

alleged in the previous action he filed in this court (case number 2:14-cv-1555-TLN-EFB 

PS), (2) whether defendant Phoenix Sinclair was the individual who performed the defective 

dental work plaintiff alleged in the complaint in the prior action, and (3) whether the dental 

work alleged in the prior action occurred on August 29, 2013, September 13, 2013, or some 

other date. Plaintiff shall file this writing with the court by no later than January 21, 2016. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file the ordered writing may result in the court 

construing the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint as an admission that the claims alleged in 

this action are the same as those alleged in the previous action, thus requiring the court to 

dismiss plaintiff’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion. After plaintiff provides the 

court with the ordered writing, or fails to do so by the above-stated deadline, the court will 

address plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screen plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than January 21, 2016, plaintiff shall show cause in writing 

explaining: (1) whether the claims asserted in the present action are based on the same 

facts (i.e., the same dental work) alleged in the previous action he filed in this court (case 

number 2:14-cv-1555-TLN-EFB PS), (2) whether defendant Phoenix Sinclair was the 

individual who performed the defective dental work plaintiff alleged in the complaint in the 

prior action, and (3) whether the dental work alleged in the prior action occurred on August 

29, 2013, September 13, 2013, or some other date.

////

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-01698-TLN-EFB Document 5 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 4
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

2. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file the ordered writing may result in 

the court construing the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint as an admission that the claims 

alleged in this action are the same as those alleged in the previous action, thus requiring the 

court to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion. 

3. After plaintiff provides the court with the ordered writing, or fails to do so by the 

above-stated deadline, the court will address plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

screen plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01698-TLN-EFB Document 5 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 4