Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02120/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02120-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 07:0025 Fraud - Commodities Leverage Contracts

---

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN T. COLLADO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOURDES MARIA MIRANDA AYALA, et 

al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 19cv2120-LAB (AGS)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 8, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff John T. Collado’s Motion to 

Proceed IFP, screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and dismissed for various 

pleading deficiencies, including improper joinder of unrelated defendants, failure to state a 

claim, and lack of jurisdiction. The Court invited Collado to amend if he could fix the various 

deficiencies identified, and he has now attempted to do so.1 Unfortunately, his new pleading 

fares no better than the first and must also be dismissed.

First, Collado still improperly names unrelated defendants for unrelated torts. 

Although the Court was clear in its previous order that Collado would need to limit the claims 

in his complaint to a single incident and/or a single defendant, Collado’s First Amended 

Complaint still runs afoul of this rule. One of his claims, for example, is against an individual 

named David Phillips, who Collado accuses of pulling a handgun on him. Another involves 

 

1 Collado’s filing takes the form of an un-captioned letter to the Court. The Court construes

this as his First Amended Complaint. 

Case 3:19-cv-02120-LAB-AGS Document 6 Filed 11/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a woman named Lourdes Ayala who engaged in “unwomanlike behavior.” The Court can 

discern no common link between the defendants that would allow them to be named in the 

same suit.

Further, Collado has not shown the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Diversity 

jurisdiction is lacking because Collado and at least one of the defendants appear to be 

California citizens. Federal question jurisdiction is lacking because the various claims in the 

complaint sound in tort and do not appear to implicate federal law.

In short, Collado has not corrected the various issues the Court identified with his 

original complaint. Because it appears further amendment would be futile, this case is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Collado may 

attempt to refile his suit in state court or in another court where jurisdiction is proper, but no 

further filings will be entertained in this case. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and 

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02120-LAB-AGS Document 6 Filed 11/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2