Santana

Santana v. Hemmerling

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 16, 20233:21-cv-00406California181 words

Trial Court Opinion

a 7 United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Joshua Paul Santana Civil Action No. — 21cv0406-JO-JLB

Plaintiff, V. John C. Hemmerling; Mara W. Elliott; JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Carol Mendoza

Defendant.

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Court has explained the complaint’s deficiencies to Plaintiff and granted him two opportunities to correct them. Plaintiff has failed to do so each time and it does not appear that he will be able to do so with future opportunities. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (a court dismisses with prejudice only when it is clear that amendment could not cure the defects). Because the Court finds that further opportunities to amend would be futile to cure, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend and with prejudice.

Date: 5/16/ CLERK OF COURT JOHN MORRILL, Clerk of Court By: s/ J. Simmons J. Simmons, Deputy