Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAREN D. JONES, Case No.: 3:24-cv-2032-CAB-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON THIRD AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT 14 DR. CAM THUY QUANG TRAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on October 29, 2024. [Doc. No. 1.] Over a year 18 passed with no activity. Only when the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why 19 the case should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee did Plaintiff pay the filing 20 fee and purport to serve the Complaint on Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 2–10.] Defendants 21 thereafter filed motions to dismiss. [Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15.] Those motions were mooted, 22 however, when Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with revised defendants and claims 23 on March 18, 2026. [Doc. No. 18 (“Amended Complaint”).] The Court then issued 24 Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction because it appeared 25 from the Amended Complaint that Plaintiff’s only stated basis for subject matter 26 jurisdiction—diversity—was not satisfied. [Doc. No. 19.] 27 Instead of responding to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended 28 Complaint. [Doc. No. 20.] The Third Amended Complaint alleges federal question 1 jurisdiction for the first time and lists a smattering of federal statutes allegedly at issue. 2 [Id. at 2.] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleading once 3 as a matter of course, which Plaintiff did in filing his Amended Complaint. Thereafter, “a 4 party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s 5 leave.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2). The Docket contains no evidence of written consent 6 from Defendants. Nor has Plaintiff requested or received leave of the Court. Given Rule 7 15(a)(2)’s requirement that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” 8 however, the Court grants leave to file the Third Amended Complaint and construes it as 9 an attempt to establish federal question jurisdiction in response to the Order to Show Cause. 10 However, a Court may sua sponte dismiss a Complaint for failure to state a claim 11 under Rule 12(b)(6) after (1) giving notice of its intention to do so and (2) affording 12 Plaintiff the opportunity to submit a written response in opposition to such motion. Wong 13 v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Ventress v. Kilgore, No. 21-55433, 14 2022 WL 229556, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2022). The Court does so here with respect to 15 the Third Amended Complaint because it merely lists numerous federal statutes without 16 any factual allegations as to how the specific named Defendants allegedly violated these 17 statutes. Such a complaint does not (1) state claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or (2) meet the 18 requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) for “a short and plain statement of 19 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Gibson v. City of Portland, 20 165 F.4th 1265 (9th Cir. 2026). 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court will grant leave for Plaintiff to amend his complaint one final 2 ||time. By April 10, 2026, Plaintiff may file a Fourth Amended Complaint. It must name 3 || all defendants and provide a short and plain statement, including any alleged facts, of the 4 ||claim against each named defendant. Plaintiff is advised that the Court may sua sponte 5 review the Fourth Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. If Plaintiff does not file 6 |}a Fourth Amended Complaint by April 10, 2026, the Court will dismiss the case with 7 || prejudice. 8 It is SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: March 30, 2026 (ib 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28