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 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 13 v. PREJUDICE 14 JOHN C. HERMMERLING, CAROL MENDOZA, and MARA W. ELLIOTT, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Joshua Paul Santana, proceeding pro se, filed his original complaint on 19 March 8, 2021. Dkt. 1. On January 28, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave 20 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter 21 jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Dkt. 13. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to 22 amend because of his pro se status, and Plaintiff timely filed his First Amended Complaint 23 on February 9, 2022. On October 17, 2022, the Court again dismissed his complaint for 24 lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff leave to 25 file an amended complaint on or before November 15, 2022. Dkt. 20. On November 7, 26 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court and has not filed any submissions since. Dkt. 25. 27 Because the substance of the letter resembles his previous complaints, the Court liberally 28 1 construes this letter as a timely filed Second Amended Complaint. For the following 2 reasons, the Court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. 3 Upon review of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff 4 still fails to set forth a valid claim or plead subject matter jurisdiction. In cases proceeding 5 in forma pauperis, the Court is under a continuing duty to screen complaints and dismiss 6 them if the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 7 granted.”

(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court 8 construes his pleadings liberally. See McGuckin v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 9 1992). 10 In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff repeats his assertion that the basis for 11 federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case is “civil harassment” and “false claims act” 12 and alleges the following to support his claims: 13 The defendants represent the City Attorney’s Office of the City of San Diego. The federal question of ‘civil harassment’ arises through the police 14 department’s under their jurisdiction because of civil rights violations 15 including persistent dispatch of complaints and extras department to any and all non-emergency calls and emergency calls that lead to an arrest and/or 16 booking of an ‘FBI-8’ private citizen which may or may not constitute against 17 ‘color in law.’ It is alleged that defendants may have used the electronic filing system of California to bring into federal question, ‘false claims act,’ because 18 a document appeared on PACER that colluded the San Diego Harbor Police 19 with the U.S. District Court. The police department aforementioned is also in the defendant’s jurisdiction.” 20

21 Dkt. 25 at 1–2. 22 Even applying a liberal standard to this pro se pleading, the Court is still unable to 23 discern the nature of the claims alleged against the named defendants or how these claims 24 present a federal question. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009); Bell Atlantic 25 Corp. v. Twombly,

, 555–56, 570 (2007). The Court, therefore, dismisses 26 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint because he has failed to state a claim for relief and 27 failed to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction. 28 1 The Court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend 2 because Plaintiff has failed to cure these deficiencies despite previous opportunities to 3 |}amend. In this case, the Court has explained the complaint’s deficiencies to Plaintiff and 4 || granted him two opportunities to correct them. Plaintiff has failed to do so each time and 5 || it does not appear that he will be able to do so with future opportunities. Lucas v. Dep't of 6 || Corr.,

(9th Cir. 1995) (a court dismisses with prejudice only when it is 7 ||clear that amendment could not cure the defects). Because the Court finds that further 8 || opportunities to amend would be futile to cure, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Second 9 || Amended Complaint without leave to amend and with prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: May 16, 2023 12 13 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28