From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopes v. Deleon

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 6, 2021
20-cv-07758-CRB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)

Opinion

20-cv-07758-CRB

08-06-2021

CORNELIUS LOPES, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN DELEON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND AND DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

CHARLES R. BREYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Cornelius Lopes, who is suing numerous Defendants, filed a 455-page amended complaint on March 25, 2021. See First Amended Complaint (FAC) (dkt. 9). On April 21, 2021, Defendant Acting Attorney General of California Matthew Rodriguez moved to dismiss the amended complaint. See Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 11). The Court granted the motion to dismiss and stated that Lopes could move for leave to amend, but noted that the Court would “deny leave to amend if the proposed second amended complaint is once again extraordinarily prolix, such that ‘only through superhuman patience, effort, and insight, could any attorney review the allegations and make paragraph-by-paragraph responses.” See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 21) at 2 (citing Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011)) (cleaned up). Without moving for leave to amend, Lopes filed a 58-page another amended complaint, which Lopes refers to as his third amended complaint. See Third Amended Compl. (TAC) (dkt. 22); TAC and Supplemental Filing (dkt. 23).

Lopes titled his complaint “Third Amended Complaint, ” even though a second amended complaint was never filed.

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta now moves to strike the third amended complaint for failure to request leave to amend and failure to include a short and plain statement of the claim under Rule 8 of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. to Dismiss TAC (dkt. 24) at 5, 6.

Lopes did not timely file an opposition to the government's motion, hi any event, given the deficiencies in Lopes's proposed complaint, the Court is confident that no opposition could have persuaded the Court to giant Lopes leave to amend.

The Court construes Lopes's third amended complaint as including a request for leave to file the third amended complaint. And the Court denies that request. Lopes's third amended complaint is again so "verbose, confused, and redundant that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969) (quoting Corcoran v. Yorty. 347 F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir. 1965)). When dismissing Lopes's First Amended Complaint, the Court warned Lopes that the Court would not grant Lopes leave to amend if his proposed amended complaint was so difficult to understand. See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss at 2. Therefore, the Court denies leave to amend and giants the Attorney General's motion to strike the third amended complaint. Because the Court dismissed Lopes's First Amended Complaint and now denies Lopes's request for leave to amend, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lopes v. Deleon

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 6, 2021
20-cv-07758-CRB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Lopes v. Deleon

Case Details

Full title:CORNELIUS LOPES, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN DELEON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 6, 2021

Citations

20-cv-07758-CRB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)