court must 16 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
How later courts described this case
- court must 16 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
- court 15 must accept the allegations as true
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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-00641 TLN AC PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 STARBUCKS COFFEE,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned
18 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that
20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
21 I. SCREENING
22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not
23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to
24 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which
25 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the
27 complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of
28 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint
1 must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the
2 reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement
3 showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and
4 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth
5 simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
6 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the
8 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
9 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the
10 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von
11 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
12 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
13 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
14 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
15 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
16 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
17 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
18 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
19 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
20 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
21 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
22 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must
23 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
24 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
25 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
26 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
27 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
28 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See
1 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as
2 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).
3 II. THE COMPLAINT
4 The putative complaint is difficult to understand, consisting of disconnected stream-of-
5 consciousness sentences. Under “statement of claim,” plaintiff writes as follows: “the enduring
6 quality of additional ignorances [sic.] by the afflictions of required ‘new plastic cups, at every
7 single refilled ice for the rejected filling of a plastic jug, that was used to consume water, and
8 refreshments bought from the Walmart stores. The incredible absence of access to the
9 combinations locked bathrooms that need to be accessible for the general public, but required
10 staffs permissions by provisions of a combinations code only at this location, but not at the free
11 entry bathrooms of the Missouri Flat Coffee house under the claims of $20,000 for the ‘Wounded
12 Warrior Projects of America” by the provisions of beloved navy SEAL teams retired chief medic
13 Jonathan Blank, now employed at local Sacramento and Roseville Sutter Hospitals as a field
14 trauma nurse #32 years U.S.N. services retired chieff [sic.] petty officer.” ECF No. 1 at 4.
15 III. ANALYSIS
16 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any
17 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional
18 allegations with no basis on law and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents
19 of the complaint are sufficiently unintelligible to make it clear that leave to amend in this case
20 would not be fruitful. The undersigned will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed
21 with prejudice.
22 IV. CONCLUSION
23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to
24 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED.
25 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should
26 be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
2 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
3 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified
4 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153
5 | (th Cir. 1991).
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 || DATED: April 10, 2024 ~
g Httven— Lhar—e_
ALLISON CLAIRE
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28