ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 75

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

On May 6, 2019, plaintiff Raq Bey filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 75. His motion is DENIED.

This matter was removed to this Court just over a year ago in May 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Since it was removed, plaintiff has amended his complaint three times — most recently on January 28, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 22, 36, 58 (First, Second, and Third Amended Complaints). Plaintiff has been granted ample opportunities to amend and correct various defects and the Court believes granting further leave to amend to revive plaintiff's already dismissed claims is futile.

Further, plaintiff's proposed Fourth Amended Complaint contains allegations, parties, and claims that this Court has already dismissed. For example, this Court dismissed the City of Emeryville as a defendant, yet Mr. Bey's proposed Fourth Amended Complaint includes the City as a defendant. Dkt. No. 75-1 at 3 (Proposed Fourth Amendment Complaint). Likewise, Mr. Bey's Fourth Amended Complaint alleges claims based on various international treaties, constitutions, and declarations that this Court has dismissed multiple times. Id. at 4; see also Dkt. Nos 31, 46, 58 (Orders Dismissing First, Second, and Third Amended Complaints).

Finally, Mr. Bey seeks leave to add more defendants to his complaint — namely, Emeryville's mayor, sheriff, and chief of police. These individuals were not involved with the facts alleged and are seemingly included by Mr. Bey because they are tangentially related — solely by token of their respective job titles — to the police officers whom Mr. Bey has sued. Mr. Bey's proposed complaint does not allege facts sufficient to justify inclusion of these defendants.

Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.