affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine 21 from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough 22 detail to guide discovery”
How later courts described this case
- affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine 21 from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough 22 detail to guide discovery”
- liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal
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, Case No. 2:23-cv-2568-DC-CSK
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER, AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 ROCKET LAWYER,
(ECF Nos. 1, 2)
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff Jean Marc Van den Heuvel is representing himself in this action and
18 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF
19 No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial
20 showing. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request.
21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis
23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to
24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a
25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,
26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
27
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).
1 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In
2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual
3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and
4 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490
5 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960
6 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
7 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
8 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal).
9 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
10 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d
11 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does
12 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);
13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough
15 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
17 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
19 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be
20 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80
21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
22 II. THE COMPLAINT
23 Plaintiff’s Complaint uses the fillable form complaint and names the following
24 defendant: “Rocket Lawyer Embezler Extraordinaire Bank Account Withdrawls” with the
25 following job or title: “A false Company that extracts money,absent autority,or
26 repremands.” Compl. at 2 (ECF No. 1). In a different part of the Complaint, Plaintiff lists
27 Rocket Lawyer as another plaintiff. Id. at 3 (Section II.A.2). The brief factual allegations
28 are unclear and inconsistent. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes him $500,000.00,
1 based on a promissory note for no specified sum, or based on an account between the
2 parties for “credit card withdrawals,” or for money Plaintiff loaned Defendant. Id. at 4-5.
3 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant was paid $36.00 by mistake. Id. at 5.
4 III. DISCUSSION
5 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases
7 authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
8 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction,
9 ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516,
10 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546
11 (1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858
12 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the
13 merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d
14 at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions
15 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the
16 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction
17 can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte”
18 subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565
19 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).
20 The Complaint fails to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See
21 Compl. The Complaint asserts jurisdiction based on diversity, and alleges that the
22 amount in controversy is $500,000.00. See Compl. at 3-4 (Section II.C). The Complaint
23 does not, however, allege that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties where
24 it alleges that Plaintiff is a California citizen but identifies no residence or location of
25 Defendant “Rocket Lawyer Embezler Extraordinaire Bank Account Withdrawls.” See id.
26 at 1-2; see also id. at 3 (identifying Defendant as a corporation incorporated under the
27 laws of the state of “N.a. Constitutional values of civil rights violations.”). The Court notes
28 that the Complaint attaches a document subpoena, a deposition subpoena, a hearing
1 subpoena, and a summons. (ECF No. 1 at 7-16.) These documents, without determining
2 whether they are incorporated into the Complaint, suggest that Defendant is also a
3 citizen of California because it lists a San Francisco, California address for Defendant.
4 Id. at 14, 16. This would also establish that diversity of citizenship is lacking.
5 The Complaint also does not plead a claim based on federal law and does not
6 present any federal question. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
7 B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
8 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as
9 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims
10 and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of
11 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.
12 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court is unable to discern what causes
13 of action Plaintiff intends to bring or whether the individual or entity identified as
14 Defendant (“Rocket Lawyer Embezler Extraordinaire Bank Account Withdrawls”) is
15 fictitious. See Compl. at 2. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,
16 even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim
17 plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.
18 1984).
19 The Complaint is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
20 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine
21 from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough
22 detail to guide discovery”).
23 C. Leave to Amend
24 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court considers that
25 this is not the first suit Plaintiff has initiated in this court and prior opportunities to amend
26 have been unsuccessful. See Heuvel v. Gold Key Storage, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00835-TLN-
27 CKD (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2024) (adopting in full May 13, 2024 findings and recommendations
28 that complaint be dismissed without leave to amend); Heuvel v. Placerville Self Storage, No.
1 2:19-CV-01418-MCE-CKD-PS, 2020 WL 569421, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020)
2 (recommending complaint be dismissed and case be closed after three opportunities to
3 amend claims against storage company and other defendants), report and
4 recommendation adopted sub nom. Van Den Heuvel v. Placerville Self Storage, No.
5 2:19-CV-01418-MCE-CKD-PS, 2020 WL 1157729 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020); Van Den
6 Heuvel v. Reich, No. 2:23-CV-1213-KJM-DB-PS, 2024 WL 1257363, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
7 Mar. 25, 2024) (recommending dismissal of complaint after an unsuccessful opportunity
8 to amend). A query within the district’s CM-ECF court system indicates that Plaintiff is a
9 plaintiff in 52 or more civil cases in the Eastern District of California.
10 Like each complaint in the cases cited above, Plaintiff’s current Complaint does
11 not present a cogent, non-frivolous claim. In light of the Court’s lack of subject matter
12 jurisdiction in addition to the naming of what appears to be a fictitious defendant
13 (“Rocket Lawyer Embezler Extraordinaire Bank Account Withdrawls”) and the
14 Complaint’s deficiencies, it appears granting leave to amend would be futile. The
15 Complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d
16 at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).
17 IV. CONCLUSION
18 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed
19 in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
20 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be dismissed without leave
21 to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
24 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
25 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should
26 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any
27 reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14
28 days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time
1 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
2 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
4 | Dated: October 18, 2024 C □□ $ \U
5 CHI SOO KIM
6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28