Van Huisen v. United States House of Representatives
- 5:24-cv-07436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Van Huisen v. United States House of Representatives: the court dismissed Gregory Van Huisen’s complaint during prisoner screening for failing to state a claim.
Gregory Scott Van Huisen’s civil-rights action was dismissed, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint. The United States House of Representatives and the Speaker of the House were the defendants named in the complaint.
What happened
In Van Huisen v. United States House of Representatives, Gregory Van Huisen, who was representing himself, sued the United States House of Representatives and the Speaker of the House under a civil-rights law. His complaint referred to the 2024 primary election and included various difficult-to-decipher statements, quotations, and references.
The court found that Van Huisen did not identify an injury, explain who injured him, provide facts supporting his allegations, or explain why any injury was unlawful. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim. It also decided that allowing an amendment would be futile, based in part on Van Huisen’s history of filing similar lawsuits.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without leave to amend. It also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the clerk to close the case, and noted that the dismissal counted as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The opinion does not clearly identify the judge’s full name; the order is signed with an unclear name beginning “P. Casey Pit.”
The detailed version
- Van Huisen v. United States House of Representatives · No. 5:24-cv-07436
- July 17, 2025
Background
Gregory Scott Van Huisen, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the United States House of Representatives and the Speaker of the House. The complaint referred to the 2024 primary election and contained statements involving the House, the Speaker, alleged election-related matters, religious quotations, historical or fictional references, and an account of fishing. The opinion states that the complaint was difficult to understand.
Screening standard
Because Van Huisen was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.
Analysis
The court concluded that Van Huisen did not state a claim for relief. It found that he did not identify any injury, provide facts supporting his allegations, or explain who injured him, how or when he was injured, where the injury occurred, or why he believed the injury was unlawful.
The court also considered Van Huisen’s history of filing eleven civil-rights lawsuits in the district containing similarly difficult-to-understand allegations. The court stated that he had previously been given opportunities and detailed instructions to correct defects but had not done so. It concluded that amendment would be futile and denied leave to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and without leave to amend. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the file, and stated that the dismissal was a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The opinion does not clearly identify the judge’s full name; the signature appears to read a name beginning “P. Casey Pit.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.