1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO M. SOMOZA, Case No. 2:22-cv-08538-SPG (BFM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

14 CENTRAL JUVENILE HALL, et al.,

JUDGE

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaints, the 19 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 21 those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 The Report recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 23 without further leave to amend and dismissal of this action with prejudice. (ECF 24 No. 31.) As explained below, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report (ECF No. 42) do 25 not warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 26 Plaintiff objects that his “rights were violated by Defendants near[ly] 50 27 years ago[.]” (ECF No. 42 at 1.) This objection does not overcome the Report’s 28 finding that Plaintiff failed to allege why his claims, which involve the alleged 1 adulteration of his food while he was in juvenile hall during the 1970s, are not time- 2 barred. (ECF No. 31 at 9-13.) 3 Plaintiff objects that Defendants “deliberately and sadistically deprived 4 Plaintiff of normal life by way of implementing saltpeter into Plaintiff’s food and 5 implemented a condiment and the one that left Plaintiff steril[e].” (ECF No. 42 at 6 1-2.) This objection does not overcome the Report’s analysis of why Plaintiff has 7 failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Specifically, as the Report 8 explained, Plaintiff has not named a proper Defendant, has not alleged an official 9 policy or custom that gave rise to the alleged acts, has not alleged anyone with 10 supervisory authority knew of the problem, yet did nothing to address it, and has 11 not alleged the circumstances under which the substance was added to his food. 12 (ECF No. 31 at 6-9.) 13 Finally, Plaintiff objects that this case should be allowed to “move forward.” 14 (ECF No. 42 at 2.) The Court has reviewed the filing that could be construed as 15 Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 35.) The filing does not 16 cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the Report, which explained that 17 Plaintiff was required to provide “more than labels and conclusions.” (ECF No. 31 18 at 3 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).) Because 19 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, despite having been granted two prior 20 opportunities to amend, further leave to amend is not warranted. See Zucco 21 Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The fact 22 that [plaintiffs] failed to correct these deficiencies in its Second Amended 23 Complaint is a strong indication that the plaintiffs have no additional facts to plead. 24 Accordingly, the district court did not err when it dismissed the [Second Amended 25 Complaint] with prejudice, since it was clear that the plaintiffs had made their best 26 case and had been found wanting.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); 27 see also Espy v. J2 Global, Inc., 99 F.4th 527, 542 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Because 28 [Plaintiff] had previously been granted two chances to amend but still failed to state 1 || claim, ‘the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly 2 || broad.’”) (quoting Zucco, 552 F.3d at 1007). 3 In sum, Plaintiff's objections are overruled. 4 It is ordered that: 5 (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted; 6 (2) the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; 7 and 8 (3) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice for 9 failure to state a claim and because the Second Amended Complaint is 10 untimely on its face. 11 12 || DATED: August 21, 2024

14

EN GENET

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28