Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01984/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01984-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALICE E. SIMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1984-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-01984-JAM-EFB Document 4 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 

“requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only 

those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 

authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 

jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 

Case 2:15-cv-01984-JAM-EFB Document 4 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 

Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to decipher. ECF No. 1. She alleges that the Social 

Security Administration (“SSA”) informed her that an adult male came into the SSA’s office with 

her disabled daughter and stated that he was the father of plaintiff’s daughter and that plaintiff 

was dead. Id. at 1. Id. She further alleges that she has not seen her daughter, who suffers from a 

mental disorder, since her disappearance in August 2012. She requests that the adult male be 

arrested and states that she “would appreciate if this matter can be solved so we can go home! 

back to Orange County.” Id. at 2. 

While plaintiff alleges facts which, if taken as true, are understandably upsetting, she has 

not stated a claim for relief. Nor does it appear from her complaint that this court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over her intended claim(s), although any such claim is not clear. Thus, it is not 

clear how the facts in the complaint would give rise to a federal question jurisdiction.2 Although 

the SSA is the only named defendant, the allegations in the complaint suggest that she intends to 

proceed against the individual purporting to be the father of her daughter, and not the SSA. The 

concern raised in her complaint is the alleged disappearance of her child, who was apparently 

taken by an unknown assailant. The only relief sought is her daughter’s return and the 

apprehension of the individual that took her, a remedy that must be directed to or pursued through 

appropriate law enforcement agencies. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. No relief is sought against the SSA. 

For these reasons, the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiffs will be granted leave to file 

an amended complaint, if she can allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and 

sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend 

to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended 

 2

 Neither is any basis alleged for diversity jurisdiction. The complaint does not allege 

diversity of the parties or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

Case 2:15-cv-01984-JAM-EFB Document 4 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each 

defendant. Any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above. It must also 

contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in form pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein. 

 3. Plaintiff’s is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an 

amended complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case 

and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 

DATED: April 5, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01984-JAM-EFB Document 4 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 4