Rodriguez v. Hemit et al

Filing 77

ORDER dismissing without leave to amend Plaintiff's 14 Amended Complaint; dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's claims as to all Defendants. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

JERARDO RODRIGUEZ,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. C16-778-RAJ
ORDER

SOHI HEMIT, et al.

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on this Court’s Order’s dismissing

16

Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 76. Plaintiff filed this action

17

complaining about his mail carrier and mail service. Dkt. ## 1-1, 41. Defendants filed a

18

Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim

19

upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. ## 58, 66. On July 30, 2018, the Court granted

20

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dkt. # 76. The

21

Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the Court lacked subject matter

22

jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and because

23

Plaintiff failed to state a claim. Id. The Court instructed that Plaintiff must file an

24

amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Order. Id. at 10-11. The

25

Court explicitly warned Plaintiff: “If Plaintiff fails to adequately allege subject matter

26

jurisdiction, or if Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading by this deadline, this Court

27

will dismiss this action with prejudice either sua sponte or by motion.” Id.

28

ORDER – 1

1

Over two weeks have passed since the Court’s July 30, 2018 Order, and Plaintiff

2

has not complied and has not filed any amended pleading. Plaintiff’s Amended

3

Complaint still fails for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and still fails to set forth any

4

actionable legal claim. The Court cannot see how Plaintiff’s complaint would be saved

5

with further amendment. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995)

6

(dismissal without leave to amend is proper where “it is absolutely clear that no

7

amendment can cure the defect”).

8

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

9

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 41). Plaintiff’s claims as to all Defendants are

10

hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

11
12

Dated this 15th day of August, 2018.

13
14

A

15
16

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2