# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · March 26, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11371852

## Case

- **Full name:** Luis Enrique Cano v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** March 26, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11371852

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11

12 LUIS ENRIQUE CANO, No. 2:25-cv-05444-AB-AJR

13 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION
v.
14 AND ORDER GRANTING
FEDERAL BUREAU OF MOTION TO DISMISS
15 INVESTIGATION, ET AL.,
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
16 Defendants.
AND DISMISSING ACTION
17 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

18

19
I.
20
INTRODUCTION
21
On November 26, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Luis Enrique Cano (“Plaintiff”) filed a
22
civil action (the “Complaint”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against
23
Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and “U.S. Bank Trust National
24
Associate” (“U.S. Bank”). (Dkts. 1; 1-1 at 2.)1 On June 16, 2025, Defendant FBI
25
removed the action from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to this Court
26
27

28
1 The Court cites to the CM/ECF pagination on the top of each page.
1 defendant in the state-court Complaint, the record reflects that U.S. Bank had not
2
appeared in the action prior to removal and has not appeared in this Court.
3
On June 27, 2025, Defendant FBI filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
4
(the “Motion”), originally filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, supported by the
5
Declaration of Alexander L. Farrell, attached exhibits, and a Request for Judicial
6
Notice. (Dkts. 10 – 10-8.) On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter with attached
7
exhibits that, while difficult to decipher, appears intended as an opposition to the
8
9 Motion. (Dkt. 17.)
10 On July 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition
11 to the Motion by August 11, 2025, and cautioned that failure to do so could be
12 deemed consent to granting the Motion. (Dkt. 19.) The Magistrate Judge further
13 advised Plaintiff that the Motion sought dismissal of the action in its entirety. (Id.)
14 On August 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed another letter with an attached exhibit that
15 appears intended as an opposition to the Motion. (Dkt. 24.)
16 On September 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge again ordered Plaintiff to
17 respond to the Motion and warned that failure to do so could be deemed consent to
18 granting the Motion. (Dkt. 27.) The Magistrate Judge set a response deadline of
19 October 7, 2025. (Id.) On September 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed another letter with
20 attached exhibits that appeared intended as an opposition to the Motion. (Dkt. 29.)
21 On October 3, 2025, Defendant filed a Reply. (Dkt. 30.) Plaintiff subsequently filed
22 additional letters on October 15, 2025, and December 3, 2025, which also appear to
23 be further oppositions to the Motion. (Dkts. 31, 32.)
24 For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders as follows: (1) Defendant
25 FBI’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED (Dkt. 10); (2) Defendant
26 FBI’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED (Dkt. 10-6); (3) the Complaint is
27 DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to all defendants (Dkt. 1-1); and
28 (4) Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT
1
2
II.
3
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
4
The allegations in the Complaint are sparse, disjointed, and largely
5
unintelligible. Plaintiff appears to assert claims against Defendant FBI involving
6
alleged wiretapping, fraud, and collusion. (Dkt. 1-1 at 3.) However, the Complaint
7
does not contain intelligible factual allegations supporting these claims. The
8
9 Complaint consists, in its entirety, of the following allegations:
10 Color of law- collusion 24/7 wiretap, computer invasion & sabotage,
11 continuance of conspiracy collusion or artifice used to circumvent,
12 cheat, or deceive another person whereby, that person acts upon it to the
13 loss of his property & to his legal right. Section 242 Color of Law Title
14 18, case #20stcv06379 Section 242 Color of LAW Title 18, case
15 #24NWUD00389 Continuance of Conspiracy, Section 242 Color of
16 Law Title 18, Case #2-24CV8385-AB-AVR.
17 (Id.) Plaintiff appears to cite to 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal statute
18 addressing deprivations of rights under color of law, and references several state and
19 federal case numbers. (Id.) The Complaint does not explain the relevance of those
20 case numbers or describe how Defendant allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights.
21 As relief, Plaintiff seeks “quiet title.” (Id.) The Complaint does not identify
22 any specific property interest or explain how Defendant’s alleged conduct relates to
23 any dispute concerning title to property.
24
25 III.
26 DEFENDANT FBI’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
27 Defendant FBI moves to dismiss the Complaint on several grounds. (Dkt. 10.)
28 First, Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because
1 suit against the FBI. (Id. at 7.) Defendant contends that, absent an unequivocal
2
waiver, sovereign immunity bars claims against federal agencies. (Id.) Second,
3
Defendant further argues that Plaintiff appears to rely on 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal
4
statute that does not provide a private right of action and therefore cannot serve as a
5
basis for civil liability. (Id. at 7-8.)
6
Third, Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction under the derivative
7
jurisdiction doctrine because Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court and the
8
9 state court lacked jurisdiction over claims asserted against a federal agency. (Id. at
10 8.) According to Defendant, because the Los Angeles County Superior Court lacked
11 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the FBI, this Court likewise lacks
12 jurisdiction following removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. (Id.) Finally, Defendant
13 argues that dismissal is warranted for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the
14 Complaint fails to present a cognizable case or controversy under Article III. (Id. at
15 8-9.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s allegations are unintelligible, implausible,
16 and wholly insubstantial, and therefore fail to establish any injury in fact fairly
17 traceable to the FBI or redressable by this Court. (Id.)
18 Plaintiff filed several documents that appear intended to oppose the Motion to
19 Dismiss. (Dkts. 17, 24, 29, 31, 32.) These filing include a 28-page filing consisting
20 of a notice, various documents, and a “Letter of Opposition (Proceed with case
21 #2:25-cv-05444).” (Dkt. 29 at 12.) Plaintiff’s filings do not meaningfully respond to
22 any of the legal arguments raised in Defendant’s Motion.
23 Defendant filed a Reply, arguing that Plaintiff’s opposition does not address
24 the jurisdictional defects identified in the Motion to Dismiss and does not cure the
25 deficiencies in the Complaint. (Dkt. 30.) Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s
26 filings continue to rely on conclusory allegations and materials unrelated to any
27 viable claim against the FBI and therefore do not establish a basis for this Court’s
28 jurisdiction. (Id.)
1 LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
2
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
3
12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
4
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
5
678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when
6
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
7
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.; Hartmann v.
8
9 Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013). “The plausibility
10 standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer
11 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell &
12 Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
13 Court ordinarily must construe a pro se litigant’s pleading liberally and hold a pro se
14 plaintiff “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” See
15 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
16 The Court must accept as true all non-conclusory factual allegations contained
17 in the complaint and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
18 plaintiff. See Steinle v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 919 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th
19 Cir. 2019). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
20 contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of
21 the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
22 suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 863 (9th Cir.
23 2017). “Generally, district courts may not consider material outside the pleadings
24 when assessing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
25 Rules of Civil Procedure.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F3d 988, 998
26 (9th Cir. 2018). The Court may consider “only allegations contained in the
27 pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial
28 notice.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
1 1988) (“In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not
2
look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers, such as a memorandum in
3
opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss.” (emphasis in original)).
4
Accordingly, in ruling on the legal sufficiency of the Complaint, the Court has
5
not considered new factual allegations contained in any of Plaintiff’s oppositions, to
6
the extent any of Plaintiff’s filings may be construed as such. However, “[f]acts
7
raised for the first time in [a] plaintiff’s opposition papers should be considered by
8
9 the court in determining whether to grant leave to amend or to dismiss with or
10 without prejudice.” See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).
11
12 V.
13 DISCUSSION
14 A. Defendant FBI’s Request For Judicial Notice Is Granted.
15 In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant FBI requests judicial notice of
16 the State Court Civil Cover Sheet filed by Plaintiff and the Clerk’s Notice of Voiding
17 the Complaint Filing issued in the underlying state court proceeding, Luis Enrique
18 Cano v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, et al., Case No. 20STCV06379 (“Cano I”),
19 which Plaintiff also references in his Complaint. (Dkts. 1-1 at 3; 10-6–10-8.)
20 When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may consider
21 documents attached to the complaint, matters of judicial notice, or documents
22 incorporated by reference in the complaint. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d
23 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
24 (9th Cir. 2001), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001).
25 Documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity is not
26 questioned may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into one for
27 summary judgment. See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994),
28 overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th
1 and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to
2
matters at issue.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal
3
quotation marks omitted); see also Kim v. Allison, 87 F.4th 994, 998 n.3 (9th Cir.
4
2023). Further, a court may take judicial notice of a public record not for the truth of
5
the facts recited in the document, but for the existence of the matters therein that
6
cannot reasonably be questioned. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Flores v. Bennett, 675 F.
7
Supp. 3d 1052, 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2023).
8
9 Here, Defendant seeks judicial notice of the state-court records in Cano I.
10 (Dkts. 10-6–10-8.) Because those state court records are matters of public record
11 directly related to the allegations referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint, judicial notice
12 of these documents is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s
13 Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 10-6) and takes judicial notice of the referenced
14 state-court records submitted by Defendant. The Court does so for the limited
15 purpose of recognizing the existence of the filings and procedural context, not for the
16 truth of the matters asserted therein. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
17 B. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Claims
18 Against the FBI.
19 1. Sovereign Immunity Bars Plaintiff’s Claims Against the FBI.
20 The United States and its agencies are immune from suit unless Congress has
21 expressly waived sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475
22 (1994) (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and
23 its agencies from suit.”). Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature; therefore, a
24 court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction unless the plaintiff identifies a valid waiver of
25 immunity. Id. A plaintiff who sues the United States or its agencies bears the
26 burden of demonstrating an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity.
27 See Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983).
28 Here, Plaintiff names the FBI, a federal agency, as a defendant. (Dkt. 1-1.)
1 that would permit suit against the FBI. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify any
2
applicable waiver of sovereign immunity, the FBI is immune from suit and the Court
3
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
4
claims against the FBI must be dismissed.
5
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert constitutional claims against
6
the FBI, such claims are not cognizable because a damages remedy under Bivens v.
7
Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) is available, if at all, only against
8
9 individual federal officers and not against federal agencies. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at
10 484-86 (declining to extend Bivens to federal agencies and emphasizing that Bivens
11 is concerned with deterring unconstitutional conduct by individual officers).
12 2. Plaintiff Cannot Assert Civil Claims Under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
13 Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal
14 statute that prohibits the willful deprivation of constitutional rights under color of
15 law on account of a person’s race, color, or alienage. (Dkt. 1-1 at 3.) However, it is
16 well established that Section 242 is a criminal statute that does not provide a private
17 right of action for civil litigants. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044,
18 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (neither 18 U.S.C. § 241 nor 18 U.S.C. § 242 provides a private
19 right of action); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (same).
20 Consistent with this principle, courts have repeatedly held that violations of
21 Title 18 criminal statutes may be prosecuted only by the United States and cannot
22 serve as the basis for a civil claim brought by a private party. See, e.g., Banuelos v.
23 Gabler, 2018 WL 2328221, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2018) (holding that the plaintiff
24 “cannot bring a civil suit for violation of these sections of Title 18 [including Section
25 242] as they do not provide for a private right of action”); Salem v. Arakawa, 2016
26 WL 1043050, at *6 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2016); Cholerton v. Brown, 2014 WL
27 3818049, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2014), report and recommendation adopted, 2014
28 WL 3828209 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014). Accordingly, because 18 U.S.C. § 242 does
1 statute, and the claim must be dismissed.
2
3. The Derivative Jurisdiction Doctrine Independently Requires
3
Dismissal Of The Complaint.
4
Under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, when a case is removed under
5
Section 1442, as occurred here, the federal court’s “jurisdiction is derivative of the
6
state court’s jurisdiction.” In re Elko Cty. Grand Jury, 109 F.3d 554, 555 (9th Cir.
7
1997). Thus, if the state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, the
8
9 federal court acquires none upon removal. See Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore
10 & Ohio R.R. Co., 258 U.S. 377, 382 (1922) (“The jurisdiction of the federal court on
11 removal is, in a limited sense, derivative jurisdiction. If the state court lacks
12 jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties, the federal court acquires
13 none . . . .”). This remains true even if the action could have been brought originally
14 in federal court. See Beeman v. Olson, 828 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir. 1987). Although
15 Congress abolished the derivative jurisdiction doctrine for cases removed under 28
16 U.S.C. § 1441, it continues to apply to removals under Section 1442. See Glass v.
17 Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 570 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“[T]he
18 derivative jurisdiction doctrine is alive and well and applies to 28 U.S.C. §
19 1442 removals.”).
20 Here, Plaintiff originally filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior
21 Court against the FBI, a federal agency. State courts lack jurisdiction over claims
22 against federal agencies absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See
23 Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475. Because Plaintiff identifies no such waiver, the Court
24 concludes that the Los Angeles County Superior Court lacked subject-matter
25 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the FBI. Accordingly, this Court likewise
26 lacks jurisdiction under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. See Cox v. U.S. Dep’t of
27 Agric., 800 F.3d 1031, 1032 (9th Cir. 2015); Kleidman v. Barash, 2022 WL
28 1613019, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2022), aff’d, 2023 WL 9470708 (9th Cir. July 3,
1 C. The Court Also Lacks Jurisdiction Because Plaintiff Has Not Alleged A
2
Justiciable Case Or Controversy.
3
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only the authority
4
granted by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
5
of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Article III of the United States Constitution limits
6
the jurisdiction of federal courts to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis
7
v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). To establish Article III jurisdiction,
8
9 a plaintiff must demonstrate standing by alleging: (1) an injury in fact that is
10 concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the
11 injury and the defendant’s conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be
12 redressed by a favorable judicial decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
13 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338-39 (2016). The
14 party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence. See
15 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998).
16 Here, the Complaint is wholly unintelligible and therefore, fails to establish the
17 existence of a case or controversy. The Complaint consists of a single paragraph
18 containing a series of disconnected phrases referencing “collusion,” “24/7 wiretap,”
19 “computer invasion & sabotage,” and a “continuance of conspiracy.” (Dkt. 1-1 at 3.)
20 Plaintiff also references several case numbers but provides no explanation of their
21 relevance or connection to Defendant FBI. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff seeks “quiet
22 title” as relief, yet the Complaint contains no factual allegations describing any
23 specific property interest, dispute over title, or conduct by Defendant affecting
24 Plaintiff’s ownership of property. (Id.) Without allegations describing a dispute
25 over property rights, the Court cannot determine whether any live controversy exists.
26 Courts routinely hold that unintelligible or incoherent pleadings fail to
27 establish the existence of a justiciable controversy where, as here, the Complaint
28 contains only vague, disconnected, or incomprehensible allegations. See, e.g.,
1 that an unintelligible pleading failed to present a case or controversy); In re
2
Nakagawa, 240 F. App’x 249, 250 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that a prisoner’s vague
3
and unintelligible pleadings failed to allege facts establishing a case or controversy);
4
Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124, 125 (8th Cir. 1968) (holding that a
5
disconnected, incoherent and rambling pleading that could not be answered
6
intelligibly failed to present a case or controversy); Juste v. Resident Agency
7
Martinsburg, 153 F. Supp. 3d 242, 24 (D. D.C. 2016) (dismissing “largely incoherent
8
9 allegations” for lack of jurisdiction).
10 In short, the Court cannot discern from the Complaint what specific dispute
11 Plaintiff asks the Court to resolve. Because the pleading does not allege a concrete
12 and particularized injury traceable to Defendant’s conduct and capable of redress by
13 this Court, Plaintiff has not established the existence of an Article III case or
14 controversy. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and the
15 Complaint must be dismissed.
16 D. The Complaint Violates Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8.
17 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “‘a
18 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’
19 in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
20 upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see
21 also Smith v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 887 F.3d 944, 951 (9th Cir. 2018)
22 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and
23 direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A complaint violates Rule 8 if a defendant would
24 have difficulty responding to the complaint. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics
25 C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). Conclusory allegations are
26 insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 686 (2009).
27 Here, even if the Court had jurisdiction, the Complaint independently fails to
28 satisfy Rule 8. The Complaint consists entirely of a brief paragraph containing
1 “conspiracy.” (Dkt. 1-1 at 3.) The pleading does not describe any specific action
2
taken by Defendant FBI, nor does it provide factual context explaining how
3
Defendant allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights. The Court is not required to sift
4
through vague or scattered allegations to construct claims on Plaintiff’s behalf. See
5
Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058 (district courts are not required to “sort through a lengthy
6
complaint to determine what causes of action are alleged”); McHenry v. Renne, 84
7
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to
8
9 state a claim if “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for
10 what relief, and on what theory.”); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d
11 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (approving dismissal under Rule 8(a) of a complaint that
12 was excessively verbose and confusing, placing an unfair burden on the court and
13 defendants).
14 The Complaint’s conclusory and unintelligible allegations do not provide
15 Defendant with fair notice of the claims asserted or the factual basis for those claims.
16 As a result, Defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. The Complaint
17 therefore fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and this deficiency
18 provides an independent basis for dismissal.
19 E. The Complaint Is Dismissed Without Leave To Amend.
20 The Ninth Circuit instructs district courts to grant plaintiffs leave to amend
21 where a defective complaint can be cured by the allegation of additional facts. See
22 Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1176 (9th Cir. 2005). This is especially true for pro
23 se plaintiffs where the district court should liberally construe the complaints. See id.
24 However, “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when
25 amendment would be futile, when it would cause undue prejudice to the defendant, or
26 when it is sought in bad faith.” Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 680 (9th
27 Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
28 Here, amendment would be futile. First, the Complaint fails to establish that
1 controversy. Where Article III jurisdiction is lacking, amendment cannot cure the
2
fundamental defect because the Court lacks authority to adjudicate the matter. See
3
Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1010 (9th Cir. 2008)
4
(holding that leave to amend was not warranted where there was no case or
5
controversy); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman, 796 F.2d 770, 775 (9th Cir. 1986)
6
(explaining that amendment “is not to be used to create jurisdiction retroactively
7
where it did not previously exist”); Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.
8
9 1988) (holding that leave to amend was not warranted where there was not “anything
10 to amend”); see also Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Edwards, 838 F. App’x 124,
11 124-25 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (holding that a complaint lacking any “coherent
12 argument” was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as frivolous and without
13 leave to amend because “futility of any amendment here was readily apparent and
14 justified by the record”).
15 Moreover, Plaintiff has already been afforded multiple opportunities to clarify
16 the nature of his claims. Plaintiff filed several submissions in response to the Motion
17 to Dismiss. (Dkts. 17, 24, 29, 31, 32.) The Court also issued two orders advising
18 Plaintiff that he must file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and warning
19 that failure to respond could result in the motion being deemed granted. (Dkts. 19,
20 27.) In those same orders, the Court extended Plaintiff’s time to respond. (Id.)
21 Despite these opportunities, Plaintiff has not provided any intelligible factual
22 allegations establishing the existence of a concrete dispute with Defendant FBI.
23 Instead, Plaintiff’s filings continue to consist of vague, conclusory, and disconnected
24 statements that do not clarify the basis of his claims.
25 Given these circumstances, the Court concludes that further amendment would
26 not cure the jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies identified above. The Complaint
27 also lacks any plausible basis to state a federal claim against Defendant U.S. Bank
28 and therefore amendment would be futile as to any claim against Defendant U.S.
1 || Bank as well. Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed without leave to
7 || amend, and this action must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
3
4 VI.
5 CONCLUSION
6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: (1) Defendant FBI’s
7 || Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED (Dkt. 10); (2) Defendant FBI’s
g || Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED (Dkt. 10-6); (3) the Complaint is
g || DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to all defendants, including
19 || Defendants FBI and U.S. Bank (Dkt. 1-1); and (4) Judgment shall be entered
11 || DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
12
13 || DATED: March 26, 2026 | O—
14 be
15 HON. ANDRE BIROTTE JR.
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11371852. Public record. Not legal advice.