Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08212/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08212-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gloria Marie Bagwell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Office of Disability Adjudication and 

Review, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-08212-PCT-ESW

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3). The Court finds that Plaintiff does not have 

sufficient means to pay the Court’s fees and will grant the Application. However, as set 

forth below, upon screening the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 

1915(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading requirements of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a cause of action. The Court therefore 

dismisses the Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice and grants Plaintiff leave to file a 

First Amended Complaint consistent with the finding of the Court set forth herein. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS 

 A. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaint Pursuant to 28 

 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised 

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief 

Case 3:16-cv-08212-ESW Document 7 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). A pleading must contain a “short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it 

demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. “[A] 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its 

judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific 

factual allegations may be consistent with a claim, a court must assess whether there are 

other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. But as the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must “continue to 

construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A 

“complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent standards than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007) (per curiam)). 

 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 

facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “It 

is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss 

an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. 

 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal Court

Case 3:16-cv-08212-ESW Document 7 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

 Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of 

cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different 

states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question 

jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has 

stated that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter 

jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a 

federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to 

dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

II. ANALYSIS 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint form is completely devoid of any factual allegations. 

Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts regarding jurisdiction, the nature of her claim(s), or a 

demand. The Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P. Submission of a 

blank complaint form is not sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction or state a 

cause of action against a defendant in U.S. District Court. 

 In conclusion, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails because Plaintiff does not allege any 

facts or law from which the Court can find that it has subject matter jurisdiction over her 

case. Nor has Plaintiff stated any facts sufficient to state a claim against the named 

Defendant for which relief may be granted. Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed. 

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 

first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff must clearly 

designate on the face of the document that it is the “First Amended Complaint.” 

 A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original 

complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised 

Case 3:16-cv-08212-ESW Document 7 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

in the original complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 

prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). If Plaintiff files an amended 

complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the law 

Plaintiff believes Defendant did not follow; (2) the name of the Defendant who Plaintiff 

is suing; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action or 

inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s rights; and (5) what 

specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant’s conduct and the relief 

Plaintiff seeks. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 377. Plaintiff must repeat this process for each 

person or entity she names as a Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the 

conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury suffered by Plaintiff, the 

allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of Defendants has violated a right are 

not acceptable and will be dismissed. 

 Plaintiff must also allege subject matter jurisdiction by either showing her claim 

involves a controversy between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, or a question of federal law, identifying the specific claim and what 

statute applies, if any. 

IV. POSSIBLE DISMISSAL

 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, the Court 

may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (a 

district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 

VI. CONCLUSION

 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 

without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed 

with permission to file a First Amended Complaint no later than January 3, 2017. 

Case 3:16-cv-08212-ESW Document 7 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file a First Amended 

Complaint by January 3, 2017, the Clerk shall dismiss this action with prejudice without 

further Order of this Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file a First Amended 

Complaint, she shall not serve it on Defendant until and unless the Court screens the First 

Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If and when the Court gives 

Plaintiff leave to serve a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall be responsible for 

service and may do so by request for waiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 

 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-08212-ESW Document 7 Filed 12/02/16 Page 5 of 5