Santana v. Hemmerling

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA |} JOSHUA PAUL SANTANA, Case No.: 21-cv-406-JO-JLB 12 Plaintitt | ORDER DISMISSING IFP || V- COMPLAINT WITHOUT || JOHN C. HERMMERLING, CAROL PREJUDICE 15 MENDOZA, and MARA W. ELLIOTT, 16 Defendants.

19 On January 28, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed □□ || forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed Plaintiffs original complaint for lack of subjec || matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend || and Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Complaint on February 9; 2022. For the following ||reasons, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint without prejudice.

24 Upon review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff stil || fails to set forth a valid claim or plead subject matter jurisdiction. In cases proceeding ir || forma pauperis, the Court is under a continuing duty to screen complaints and dismiss ther |\if the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be || 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 ||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 || 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 |/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 |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 ||Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and states the claims that Plaintiff alleges against || Defendants in this case on or before November 15, 2022. Failure to do so may result in || dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. (2 ao ||Dated: to /¢J(22- LP 33 Jisook Ohta nited States District Judge