Perez v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SILVIA A BRANDON PEREZ, Case No. 19-cv-02926-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 14 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 In a prior order, the Court denied pro se plaintiff Silvia Brandon Perez’s application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend 15 because it did not state a plausible federal claim. Dkt. No. 8. After obtaining a continuance, Perez 16 filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 14. 17 The Court’s sua sponte review of the new complaint shows that it is the same as the 18 original complaint in all material respects. Perez did not provide any new facts to make her 19 federal civil rights or discrimination claims actionable at the pleadings stage. Consequently, the 20 second amended complaint is dismissed. In the absence of a federal claim, the Court declines to 21 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 22 The dismissal is with prejudice for the federal claims. Perez has been afforded an extra 23 measure of consideration as a pro se litigant, but has come up short after multiple opportunities to 24 amend, and continuances to fit her schedule. See Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 25 15-CV-01514-JD, 2016 WL 7888025, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2016), aff’d, 715 F. App’x 737 26 (9th Cir. 2018). The state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, and Perez is free to bring 27 them in California state court. See Doe v. Sempervirens Mental Health Facility, No. 14-CV- 1 Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999)). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: January 31, 2020 4 JAMES JPONATO 5 United Jtates District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28