Van Huisen v. Lafrades

Background

Gregory Scott Van Huisen, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims against state actors. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend and gave him detailed instructions. After extensions of time, Van Huisen filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint described alleged money, influence, unlawful activity, entrapment, an immoral contract, and an alleged plan to overthrow the United States government. It requested $27,000,000 from a defendant whom it described as possibly being a paid Drug Enforcement Administration agent sued in an official capacity. The opinion did not identify a cognizable legal claim arising from these allegations.

Screening and analysis

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. Although courts generally interpret self-represented pleadings liberally, the court concluded that Van Huisen’s amended complaint still did not state any claim for relief despite the earlier instructions.

The court found that further amendment would be futile. It therefore declined to allow another amendment.

Disposition

The action was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal was without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to close the file. The court further stated that Van Huisen could not proceed on these claims and facts, that a new action asserting the same claims on the same facts would also be dismissed, and that every dismissal for failure to state a claim is a “strike” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.