Opinion
8:21-cv-01881-JLS-DFM
04-18-2022
Ha Son Tran v. Fumio Kishida
Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT
On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff Ha Son Tran filed a Complaint against Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan. (See Compl., Doc. 1.) The Court dismissed the Complaint because it found that Plaintiff had “not adequately alleged this Court's jurisdiction, ” nor had “he provided a short and plain statement of his claims”; however, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (See Order, Doc. 9, at 34.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Doc. 13.)
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and concludes that it suffers from the same deficiencies as the original Complaint. Like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint appears to allege that the Toyota Corporation, Google Corporation, and the healthcare system threatened, harassed, and abused Plaintiff. Also like the original Complaint, however, the Amended Complaint fails to allege any basis for subject matter jurisdiction: it does not assert a federal claim, and it also fails to allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction. Indeed, nowhere does Plaintiff allege any amount in controversy. “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,' possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Absent allegations establishing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution or federal statute, then, this Court has no power to adjudicate Plaintiff's claims; such is the case here.
This Order incorporates by reference the legal standards set forth in the Court's previous Order at Doc. 9.
Moreover, like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint fails to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Amended Complaint fails to provide any clarity regarding what claims Plaintiff is pursuing, and it is unclear what factual bases he asserts entitle him to relief. And additionally, it is unclear what relief Plaintiff seeks.
In short, while Plaintiff may have suffered injuries, the Amended Complaint does not indicate that they are the types of injuries that this Court has authority-or ability-to remedy. As the Court has already provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend his complaint, and he was unable to cure the defects previously identified, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.