Van Huisen v. Lafrades
- Pitts
- 5:23-cv-04800
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Van Huisen v. Lafrades, Judge Pitts dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and granted permission to proceed without prepaying fees.
Gregory Scott Van Huisen, the incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, must either file an amended complaint meeting the court’s requirements within 35 days or face dismissal with prejudice as stated in the order. Eric Lafrades is the defendant named in the complaint.
What happened
Gregory Scott Van Huisen, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint against Eric Lafrades under a federal civil-rights law. The court reviewed the complaint because it was filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a government official.
The court found that the complaint did not explain what injury Van Huisen suffered, who caused it, or how any constitutional or federal-law violation caused the injury. It also found that references to other cases did not supply those missing facts.
Judge P. Casey Pitts dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, granted Van Huisen permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, and set an initial partial filing fee of $3.00. Van Huisen may file an amended complaint within 35 days; the order says the case will be dismissed with prejudice if he does not amend as required.
The detailed version
- Van Huisen v. Lafrades · No. 5:23-cv-04800
- Pitts
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Gregory Scott Van Huisen, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was against Eric Lafrades. Van Huisen’s filing referred to treason, trespass, conspiracy, elections, property, defamation, and other concepts, and requested damages, attorney fees, costs, and other relief. It did not clearly identify the facts supporting a claim.
Screening and analysis
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to review a prisoner’s complaint against a government entity or official and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court stated that Van Huisen did not state any claim for relief. Although he mentioned several possible legal theories, he did not identify an injury done to him or a person responsible for that injury. The court also noted that he referred to companion cases that he had voluntarily dismissed.
The court allowed amendment and instructed Van Huisen to explain how he was injured, what constitutional provision or federal law was violated, what remedy he seeks, and who injured him, when, and where. The court also directed him to explain his statement that he did not pursue the prison grievance process because the matter was “out of jurisdiction.”
Rulings and next steps
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Van Huisen may file a first amended complaint within 35 days from the date the order was filed. The amended complaint must use the caption and civil case number specified in the order, identify the claims he intends to pursue, and include facts showing entitlement to relief on each claim. The order states that failure to amend within the required time and in the required manner will result in a finding that further amendment would be futile, and that the action will then be dismissed with prejudice.
Judge P. Casey Pitts granted Van Huisen’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he may proceed without paying the full filing fee at the outset. The court assessed an initial partial filing fee of $3.00, with further payments to be deducted from his prison trust account as described in the attached instructions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.