Lafrades

Van Huisen v. Lafrades

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 7, 20245:23-cv-04800California821 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, Case No. 23-cv-04800-PCP

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 9 ERIC LAFRADES, et al., Defendants.

12 Gregory Van Huisen, an inmate at the Mule Creek State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend and provided detailed instructions on how to amend. Dkt. No. 6. After two extensions of time, Mr. Van Huisen filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 10.1 Mr. Van Huisen’s amended complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend because it does not state a claim for relief. I. BACKGROUND Under “Statement of Claim,” Mr. Van Huisen writes the following:

22 Dishonor/protest; civil disobedience – the dishonor was undue influence/ unlawful activity. Such as: A petty bag office or amount of cash approximately $37,500, same and similiak to Hamans plot to …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.