Santana v. Hemmerling

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} JOSHUA PAUL SANTANA, Case No.: 21-cv-406-JO-JLB 12 Plaintitt | ORDER DISMISSING IFP 13 || V- COMPLAINT WITHOUT 14 || JOHN C. HERMMERLING, CAROL PREJUDICE 15 MENDOZA, and MARA W. ELLIOTT, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On January 28, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed □□ 20 || forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed Plaintiffs original complaint for lack of subjec 21 || matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend 22 || and Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Complaint on February 9; 2022. For the following 23 ||reasons, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint without prejudice. 24 Upon review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff stil 25 || fails to set forth a valid claim or plead subject matter jurisdiction. In cases proceeding ir 26 || forma pauperis, the Court is under a continuing duty to screen complaints and dismiss ther 27 |\if the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 28 || granted.” 29 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts tha 1 basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case is “civil harassment’ and “false 2 ||claims act” and alleges the following to support his claims: 3 The [defendants] retaliated on my lifted complaint before I got to serve a 4 Declaration of Service. They uploaded a false document using the Federal efiling system that colluded the San Diego Harbor Police together with the US 5 District Court of Southern [California]. The document was uploaded “in pro 6 tunc”. Further retaliation came in the form of retaliation in the community with several “book and releases” into the SD Central Jail using the CA 7 Superior Court to keep me “quiet”. I also incurred two [Vandalism] felony g charges through [their] CA Superior Court.” 9 || Dkt. 14 at 4, § IL. 10 From the above, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the claims alleged 11 against the named defendants nor how these claims present a federal question. See Ashcrofi 12 || v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 622, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56. 13 (2007). The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because he 14 |/has failed to state a claim for relief and failed to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction. 15 || Because Plaintiff may be able to cure these deficiencies, the Court grants Plaintiff leave tc 16 |lamend. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint that sets forth the basis of the 18 ||Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and states the claims that Plaintiff alleges against 19 || Defendants in this case on or before November 15, 2022. Failure to do so may result in 20 || dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. (2 ao 22 ||Dated: to /¢J(22- LP 33 Jisook Ohta nited States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28