Dijon Bernard v. Smart Transportation Division, et al.

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIJON BERNARD, ) ) Case No. 2:23-cv-10235-SB (DTB) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS AND SMART TRANSPORTATION ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED ) DIVISION, et al. , ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) Defendants. ) )

)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the third amended complaint (TAC), all relevant records and files, and the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation and has made a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections have been made. Dkt. Nos. 55, 56. Plaintiff’s objections do not identify any error of fact or law in the R&R. Although Plaintiff disputes the recommended dismissal of several claims, his objections largely assert that he could cure the TAC by reorganizing his allegations and adding new legal theories and authorities, including claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that were previously dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. Nos. 20, 24. Plaintiff may not use an amended complaint to revive claims finally dismissed from this action, and he identifies no basis to reconsider that dismissal. does he identify any new facts he could allege to cure the deficiencies in his remaining claims. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that a district court’s discretion to deny further leave to amend is “particularly broad” when the plaintiff previously received leave to amend but failed to remedy the pleading deficiencies. See, e.g., Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff's se status does not entitle him to unlimited opportunities to amend. See Edwards v. Mondora, 700 F. App’x 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal pro se complaint without leave to amend). Because Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure the identified deficiencies and his objections identify no specific facts suggesting that another amendment could succeed, further leave to amend would be futile. The Court therefore concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The TAC 1s dismissed without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. A final judgment will issue separately. Dated: July 30, 2026 is, STANLEY BLUMEMFELD, JR. United States District Judge