1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZAC J THAYER, Case No. 21-cv-03938-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 10 10 LANDMARK EVENT STAFFING AND SERVICES, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Zachary Thayer, representing himself, has filed an amended complaint against 14 Defendant Landmark Event Staffing and Services. Dkt. No. 10. The amended complaint is now 15 before the Court for review under

. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint. Dkt. No. 1. After granting Plaintiff’s 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge Corley notified Plaintiff that the 19 attachments to his complaint were not legible and ordered him to refile the attachments. Dkt. No. 20 5. On July 23, 2021, Judge Corley wrote a report and recommendation regarding dismissal. Dkt. 21 No. 6. Plaintiff refiled his complaint in a legible format. Dkt. No. 8. The Court then dismissed 22 Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, explained the deficiencies, and directed Plaintiff 23 to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days. Dkt. No. 9. The Court made clear that 24 failure to correct the deficiencies would result in the dismissal of this action.

. Plaintiff 25 then filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 10. 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court review an in forma pauperis complaint before 1 1226, 1234 & n.8. The Court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief 2 can be granted. Barren v. Harrington,

(9th Cir. 1998). 3 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 4 relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 6 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000)). The complaint must 7 include a “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, 8 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff must provide the grounds that entitle him to relief. 10 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). 11 Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes the complaint liberally and affords him the 12 benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988); 13 cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). The Court is not, 14 however, required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions 15 of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

(9th 16 Cir. 2001). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 The Court finds the amended complaint insufficient under

and Federal 19 Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff did not address the deficiencies identified by the Court in its 20 prior dismissal order. See Dkt. No. 9. It appears Plaintiff seeks to bring an employment 21 discrimination action and also identifies several constitutional violations. But the amended 22 complaint, which appears to concern radio hacking, contains no coherent allegations. The Court is 23 unable to identify the actions or failures to act that constituted a legal violation, or how the alleged 24 hacking relates to Plaintiff’s employment. As the Court previously explained, Plaintiff must 25 coherently describe the facts supporting each claim and the specific Defendant against whom the 26 claim is alleged, and cannot rely on attachments as a substitute for meeting the pleading 27 requirements. Plaintiff again includes various attachments that do not assist the Court in 1 While “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 2 || standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) 3 (quotations omitted), the Court need not grant leave to amend where “it determines that the 4 || pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts,” Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted). Despite Plaintiff’s notice of the deficiencies and 6 || the opportunity to amend, Plaintiff still demonstrates an inability to state any legally cognizable 7 claims for relief, and the Court is convinced that Plaintiff cannot cure the defects identified. See 8 || Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]here the 9 Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has subsequently failed to add the 10 || requisite particularity to its claims, [t]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 11 particularly broad.” (quotations omitted)). 12 || Iv. CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the case WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The 14 || Clerk is directed to close the case. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: 11/7/2022 A Mawpurred 4 Ad, ab . HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28