Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02926/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02926-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SILVIA A BRANDON PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02926-JD 

ORDER RE DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 14

In a prior order, the Court denied pro se plaintiff Silvia Brandon Perez’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend

because it did not state a plausible federal claim. Dkt. No. 8. After obtaining a continuance, Perez 

filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 14. 

The Court’s sua sponte review of the new complaint shows that it is the same as the 

original complaint in all material respects. Perez did not provide any new facts to make her 

federal civil rights or discrimination claims actionable at the pleadings stage. Consequently, the 

second amended complaint is dismissed. In the absence of a federal claim, the Court declines to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

The dismissal is with prejudice for the federal claims. Perez has been afforded an extra 

measure of consideration as a pro se litigant, but has come up short after multiple opportunities to 

amend, and continuances to fit her schedule. See Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 

15-CV-01514-JD, 2016 WL 7888025, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2016), aff’d, 715 F. App’x 737 

(9th Cir. 2018). The state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, and Perez is free to bring 

them in California state court. See Doe v. Sempervirens Mental Health Facility, No. 14-CV00816-JD, 2015 WL 4238242, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2015) (quoting Freeman v. Oakland 

Case 3:19-cv-02926-JD Document 15 Filed 01/31/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02926-JD Document 15 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 2