Harris v. Lake County Superior Court et al

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 23, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES LA VELL HARRIS, Plaintiff, 8 9 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE v. 10 LAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.17-cv-01785-JST Re: ECF No. 16 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff James La Vell Harris filed this case on March 31, 2017. ECF No. 1. On April 21, 14 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and then dismissed 15 Plaintiff’s case without prejudice because the complaint failed to state a claim. ECF No. 10. The 16 Court explained: 17 18 19 20 21 Each of Harris’s twenty-four causes of action is for “discrimination” by one of Defendants. See generally ECF No. 1. But there are no allegations in the complaint that any of the actions allegedly taken by any of the defendants were on account of race or any other protected ground. Id. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend. Rather than amend, however, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal order to the Ninth Circuit. 22 ECF No. 11. On June 1, 2017, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of 23 jurisdiction “because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable.” ECF No. 13. 24 Plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel this Court to “issue a final 25 ruling” in his case. ECF No. 14. On June 7, 2017, the Court issued an order explaining that it 26 would give Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend his complaint, and that if he did not do so, the 27 Court would dismiss his complaint with prejudice. ECF No. 15. 28 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2017. ECF No. 16. The amended 1 complaint suffers from the same flaw as the original complaint: it contains no factual allegations 2 that would plausibly support Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination. The Court therefore dismisses 3 Plaintiff’s case. Because the Court already granted Plaintiff leave to amend, and Plaintiff failed to 4 correct the deficiencies in his complaint that the Court specifically identified, dismissal is without 5 leave to amend. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (“It is not an 6 abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when any proposed amendment would be futile.”); 7 Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming 8 denial of leave to amend where the plaintiff had failed to add any new facts to the proposed 9 amended complaint). 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 23, 2017 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?