Reich

(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Reich

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 25, 20242:23-cv-01213California2,570 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:23-cv-1213 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 LAURA REICH, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jean Marc Van den Heuvel is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 18 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 Pending before the court are plaintiff’s amended complaint, motion to proceed in forma pauperis 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and request for issuance of a subpoena. (ECF Nos. 2, 4 & 7.) The 21 amended complaint concerns allegations related to lost property. 22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 23 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 24 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons 25 stated below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s amended…

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.