1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN SANCHEZ, et al., Case No.: 3:25-cv-00870-CAB-AHG

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 v. [Doc. No. 4] 14 BDF LAW GROUP, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging a single due process violation 18 against several Defendants who were clearly not state actors. [Doc. No. 1.] In that 19 complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the Court’s jurisdiction was based on a proper federal 20 question. The Court dismissed that complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction since 21 there was no alleged state action to sustain a constitutional claim. [Doc. No. 3.] 22 In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs have added the Attorney General of California 23 as a Defendant to this case. The sole allegation is that the Attorney General discriminated 24 against Plaintiffs on account of their national origin. [FAC ¶ 29.] This allegation is entirely 25 conclusory. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 26 Twombly,

(2007)) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 27 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”) 28 l Moreover, any claim for damages against the Attorney General, who appears to be 2 ||sued in his official capacity, is barred by sovereign immunity. See Aholelei v. Dep't of 3 || Public Safety,

, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits 4 ||for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting 5 || in their official capacities.”). The other relief requested has nothing to do with any alleged 6 || discrimination by the Attorney General. The Court again dismisses the operative complaint 7 |}under Rule 12(b)(1). See Bell v. Hood,

(1946) (“[A] suit may 8 ||sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the 9 || Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the 10 ||purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and 11 || frivolous.”). 12 The Court will give Plaintiffs an additional, final opportunity to amend their 13 |}complaint. Plaintiffs are reminded that the Court may dismiss a case on 12(b)(1) grounds 14 ||sua sponte. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002). Should Plaintiffs 15 |/continue to assert federal claims to manufacture jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss this 16 with prejudice. Plaintiffs have until April 30, 2025 to file an amended complaint. 17 ©; g 18 ||Dated: April 16, 2025 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28