The following excerpt is from Hunter v. Fetch, No. 2: 18-cv-1751 KJN P (E.D. Cal. 2018):
It is clear that another amendment cannot cure the deficiencies discussed above. Therefore, it is recommended that the dismissal be without further leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (While the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.