Opinion
CIVIL NO. 19-00128 SOM-RLP
04-24-2019
ELGENE LUZON DE-AMOR, Plaintiff, v. BUENAVENTURA C. CABALAN, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Elgene Luzon De-Amor, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this matter along with an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs ("IFP Application"). See ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Because De-Amor failed to allege any viable claim over which this court had subject matter jurisdiction, this court dismissed the original Complaint and denied as moot the IFP Application. De-Amor was given leave to file an Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 5.
On March 19, 2019, De-Amor filed an Amended Complaint along with a second IFP Application. See ECF Nos. 6 & 7. On March 27, 2019, De-Amor filed two other documents that appeared to be intended to supplement her Amended Complaint. See ECF Nos. 8 & 9. On April 2, this court dismissed the Amended Complaint, as supplemented, and denied the second IFP Application as moot, ruling that the Amended Complaint failed to state any claim against any Defendant. See ECF No. 11. The court noted that De-Amor's allegations were often illegible, rambling, conclusory statements unsupported by coherent factual detail. Id., PageID # 275. The court gave De-Amor one last chance to file an amended pleading, informing her that, if the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint and it appeared to be futile to allow further amendment, the court would end this action. Id., PageID # 279. The court provided De-Amor with guidance as to how she could amend her pleading in a manner that would allow it to proceed. Id., PageID #s 277-79.
On April 12, 2019, De-Amor filed a Second Amended Complaint, along with a third IFP Application. Because the Second Amended Complaint continues to be incoherent and to fail to allege in a legible manner any viable claim over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction, the court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint and denies the third IFP Application as moot. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (allowing this court to dismiss a complaint at the outset if it appears from the facts alleged that the action is frivolous, that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief); see also Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987).
De-Amor's Second Amended Complaint is approximately an inch thick, consisting of copies of articles, music scores, money, and maps, with handwritten notations on them. The Second Amended Complaint fails to clearly allege any fact showing that any Defendant harmed her or demonstrating why any Defendant should be liable to her. The court therefore dismisses the Second Amended Complaint as frivolous and because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the usual case, this court freely grants leave to file amended complaints that cure deficiencies. However, leave to amend may be denied when further amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008); Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009). In this case, the court has given De-Amor multiple chances to amend her pleadings. De-Amor's latest pleading demonstrates that she will not be able to state a viable claim. The court therefore dismisses the Second Amended Complaint, denies the Third IFP Application as moot, and declines to allow De-Amor further leave of court to file amended pleadings.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment against De-Amor and to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 24, 2019.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge