VanHuissen v. Warner Bros.

Background

Gregory Van Huisen, whom the opinion identifies as a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Warner Brothers, Time Warner, and Leonardo DiCaprio. The complaint alleged “browbeating and splashing” in violation of the Eighth Amendment, negligence and theft by deception related to “harvest time” and “dry rot,” and an undefined claim related to “precedence.” It also mentioned treason, trespass, conspiracy, elections, property, and defamation. He sought $27 million.

Screening standard

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officers or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are generally read liberally.

Analysis

The court first held that the complaint did not identify a proper defendant for a claim under § 1983. That statute provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights, but the alleged violation must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. The court found that Van Huisen alleged no facts suggesting that Warner Brothers, Time Warner, or DiCaprio acted under color of state law.

The court separately found that the complaint did not state any claim for relief. It did not identify the injury suffered, provide facts supporting the allegations, or explain who injured Van Huisen, how, where, or when the injury occurred, or why he believed the injury was unlawful. The court described the complaint as containing difficult-to-decipher statements and quotations from religious sources, films, and an unknown text apparently related to Christopher Columbus’s ships.

Leave to amend

The court noted that Van Huisen had previously been given an opportunity and detailed instructions to amend a complaint in a prior related proceeding, but had not corrected similar defects. Although courts generally allow prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend, the court concluded that amendment would be futile because the defendants were clearly not state actors and because of Van Huisen’s history of filing what the court characterized as frivolous actions. The court therefore denied leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The opinion’s opening states that the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and its conclusion states that the action was dismissed without leave to amend. The court certified that any appeal was not taken in good faith, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, and closed the file. Judge P. Casey Pitts signed the order.