Van Huisen v. Chief of Staff Navy

Background

Gregory S. Van Huisen, an inmate at California State Prison for Los Angeles County, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute for claims against state or local officials acting under state law. He sued the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy and Army, the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, four employees at Mule Creek State Prison, and “8 possibly 9 real defendants.”

The complaint contained fourteen pages of difficult-to-decipher statements and quotations. It referred to subjects including housing, a “health code,” prison conditions, release-date confusion, and possible errors concerning his release date. The opinion states that the complaint did not clearly explain the claims or the facts supporting them.

Screening analysis

Because Van Huisen was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental entities or employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening process requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read generously.

The court concluded that Van Huisen did not state any claim for relief. Although he mentioned housing and a health code, he did not identify an injury, provide supporting facts, or explain who injured him, how and when the injury occurred, or why the injury was unlawful.

The court further concluded that Van Huisen had not properly connected the named defendants to any harm. The opinion states that he did not identify how the four Mule Creek State Prison employees caused him harm, and that he identified no interaction or harm involving the Navy Chief of Staff, the Army Chief of Staff, or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director.

To the extent he sought an earlier release from confinement based on confusion or possible errors about his release date, the court stated that the request had to be made in a separate habeas action, meaning a case seeking release from unlawful custody rather than damages or other civil-rights relief.

Amendment and disposition

The court noted that Van Huisen had filed eleven civil-rights lawsuits in the district involving similarly difficult-to-understand allegations and often improper defendants. It also stated that he had previously received an opportunity and detailed instructions to amend a complaint but had not corrected the defects. Based on that history, the court concluded that allowing another amendment would be futile.

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The opinion states that the complaint was dismissed with prejudice and that dismissal was 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. A footnote states that the dismissal means Van Huisen cannot proceed on these claims and facts, and that a new action based on the same claims and facts would also be dismissed; it also states that every dismissal for failure to state a claim is a “strike” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Ruling

Judge P. Casey Pitts dismissed Van Huisen’s action at the required prisoner screening stage for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend.