1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRADLEY C. BURCHFIELD, Case No. 22-cv-02925-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 18

10 ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff Bradley C. Burchfield filed this civil action and an application 15 to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. On June 15, Magistrate Judge Kandis 16 Westmore granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 11. However, in 17 screening the complaint under

, Judge Westmore found that Plaintiff’s 18 allegations were insufficient to state a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 19 (“RICO”) or false advertising claim.

at 2–3. Judge Westmore therefore dismissed Plaintiff’s 20 case for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2). 21 Plaintiff was nevertheless given an opportunity to file an amended complaint by August 31, 2022. 22

. 23 Plaintiff also filed a motion for temporary injunction. See Dkt. No. 6. The Court denied 24 the motion without prejudice to refiling after Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 25 15. In doing so, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that if the amended complaint failed to cure all the 26 defects identified in the prior order, see Dkt. No. 11, the complaint could be dismissed in its 27 entirety without further leave to amend. See Dkt. No. 15 at 2. 1 finds that it still does not cure the deficiencies previously identified. According to the FAC, 2 Defendants are involved in a criminal enterprise to sell methamphetamine on Alibaba.com. See 3

Plaintiff inadvertently purchased the product for use as a “rust inhibitor” and “acrylic nail 4 resin,” but it did not work as advertised.

Instead, it corroded electrical components and his 5 truck, and Plaintiff was arrested for possession of methamphetamine.

Plaintiff asserts that at 6 some point he received a threatening message referring to Alibaba.com, and believes it was sent by an associate of the Sinaloa Cartel. Plaintiff also suggests that employees of the United States 7 Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) were involved by providing false or misleading 8 information on the DEA website.

Critically, Plaintiff fails to explain with sufficient detail 9 how each Defendant was involved in this alleged conduct or what the connection is among 10 Defendants. See Dkt. No. 11 at 3. Plaintiff offers conclusory allegations, but few facts to support 11 his contentions. 12 Plaintiff has had an opportunity to amend his complaint, and the Court is now convinced 13 that he cannot allege facts to cure the defects identified in the Court’s previous order. See Dkt. 14 No. 11. The Court thus concludes that granting Plaintiff further leave to amend would be futile. 15 See Ramirez v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“Leave to amend should be granted 16 unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts, and should be 17 granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.”) (quotations omitted); see also Brazil v. United States 18 Dep’t of Navy,

, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a pro se litigant . . . may be entitled to 19 great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some 20 minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did 21 wrong.”). The Court therefore DISMISSES the case without leave to amend. See Zucco 22 Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]here the Plaintiff has 23 previously been granted leave to amend and has subsequently failed to add the requisite 24 particularity to its claims, [t]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly 25 broad.” (quotation omitted)). 26 // 27 // 1 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close the case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: 12/9/2022

nnd, S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28