Perez v. State of California
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-02926
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Perez v. State of California, Judge Donato dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the state claims without prejudice after repeated amendments.
Silvia A Brandon Perez’s federal civil-rights and discrimination claims were dismissed with prejudice, and her state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The defendants were State of California and other defendants identified in the caption.
What happened
In Silvia A Brandon Perez v. State of California et al., the court reviewed Perez’s second amended complaint after previously giving her permission to amend. The court said the new complaint was materially the same as the earlier one and added no facts supporting her federal civil-rights or discrimination claims.
The court dismissed the second amended complaint because it did not present a plausible federal claim. Because no federal claim remained, the court declined to decide the state-law claims. The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing Perez to bring them in California state court.
Judge James Donato issued the order on January 31, 2020. The opinion also states that Perez represented herself and had received multiple opportunities to amend, including a continuance.
The detailed version
- Perez v. State of California · No. 3:19-cv-02926
- James Donato
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Perez represented herself. In an earlier order, the court denied her application to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed her first amended complaint because it did not state a plausible federal claim. The court allowed her to amend. After receiving a continuance, Perez filed a second amended complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court independently reviewed the new complaint and found that it was the same as the original complaint in all material respects. Perez had not added facts that made her federal civil-rights or discrimination claims legally actionable at the pleading stage. Because the complaint did not establish a federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to decide related state-law claims after the federal claims are gone—under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Disposition
The court dismissed the second amended complaint. It dismissed the federal claims with prejudice after multiple opportunities to amend and continuances. It dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice, and the opinion states that Perez may bring those claims in California state court.
Judge
James Donato, United States District Judge, signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.