1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEMETRIUS PHILLIPS, Case No. 25-cv-07231-JD

8 Plaintiffs, SECOND ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

10 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 The Court denied a temporary restraining order request by plaintiff Demetrius Phillips, 14 Dkt. No. 22, and dismissed his complaint with leave to amend, Dkt. No. 29. Dismissal was 15 warranted because the complaint was an inchoate and largely incomprehensible series of 16 statements that did not rise to the level of a plausible claim of any sort even when read generously 17 for a pro se litigant. See id. at 1-2. 18 Phillips filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 30, which did not improve the situation. 19 The amended complaint says that Phillips is a “Private Man, non-legal entity, non-resident” and 20 mentions California vehicle registration requirements. Id. at 1-2. The amended complaint says 21 that California may not regulate “the free movement of non-commercial activities of Private 22 Man,” and that California “has no lawful authority to enforce a fee or tax on a Constitutional Right 23 of the Private Man to travel freely.” Id. at 3-4. While this language has overtones of interstate 24 travel rights, nothing in the amended complaint indicates that such rights are in any way 25 implicated here, or that any other cognizable claim has been adequately stated. The amended 26 complaint again names the Franchise Tax Board as a defendant, despite the Court’s indication in 27 the prior order that sovereign immunity was a bar to that. Dkt. No. 29 at 2. 1 Consequently, dismissal is warranted. See Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-cv-04717-JD, 2021 2 |} WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2022) (‘The Court may ‘at any time’ dismiss an IFP 3 complaint that fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” (quoting 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(e)(2)(B))). The dismissal is with prejudice. Phillips has had ample opportunity to 5 || plausibly allege a claim, and a clear statement by the Court of the shortcomings in the complaint 6 || that he needed to address. Further amendment is not warranted and is highly unlikely to be 7 productive. See Zucco Partners, LLC vy. Digimarc Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2009). 8 The case is ordered closed. No further filings will be accepted. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: December 17, 2025 11

JAMES#PONATO 13 United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

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