Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01762/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01762-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

Mark Joseph Rhodes,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1762-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on the Court’s review of pro se Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint, timely filed on October 5, 2012. (Doc. 8) Because a district court is required

to give some guidance to a pro se plaintiff regarding the deficiencies in his complaint, the

undersigned Magistrate Judge will explain Plaintiff’s pleading deficiency for the last

time. Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 1988) (“We do not,

of course, require the district court to act as legal advisor to the plaintiff.”) (citation omitted); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987).

While a significant improvement over his two prior complaints, Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint still lacks sufficient specificity to comply with prior Court orders

and Rule 8(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., which mandates “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (Docs. 5, 7) Plaintiff’s allegation that “[t]he

decision of the Administrative Law Judge was erroneous, not supported by substantial

evidence in the record, and/or contrary to law[]” are simply legal conclusions. (Doc. 8, ¶

9 at 2) Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations fail to give the Commissioner fair notice of the

Case 2:12-cv-01762-LOA Document 9 Filed 10/15/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

alleged error(s) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed in denying benefits to

Plaintiff and, therefore, does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted

inferences are insufficient” to state a claim that the ALJ erred and Plaintiff is entitled to

relief. Caviness v. Horizon Cmty Learning Ctr, Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010)

(citation omitted). 

Following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a federal district court must

determine if a complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations state “a plausible claim for

relief[,]” even when reviewing a pro se complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also

Bargas v. Astrue, 2012 WL 4829320, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) (pro se Social

Security complaint dismissed because it had not “identified any errors in any decision

rendered by an Administrative Law Judge[.]”); Benson v. Commissioner, 2011 WL

3667439, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011) (pro se complaint dismissed because it “failed

to identify with specificity how the Commissioner of Social Security erred when denying

his application.”); Duryea v. Social Sec. Admin., 2012 WL 1983344 (D. Ariz. June 4,

2012). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Plaintiff is also informed that he cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make

Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. The District Court of Arizona’s Rule of Practice

(“Local Rule” or “LRCiv”) 15.1 requires an amended pleading not incorporate by reference any part of a preceding pleading, including exhibits attached to that pleading. In

other words, an amended complaint must be complete unto itself without reference to any

prior pleading. This is required because an amended complaint supersedes all prior

complaints. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (An “amended complaint supersedes the original,

the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”). Once a plaintiff files an amended

Case 2:12-cv-01762-LOA Document 9 Filed 10/15/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

complaint, prior complaints no longer serve any function in the case. Thus, Plaintiff’s

Third Amended Complaint must be complete unto itself and include exhibits Plaintiff

wishes to attach thereto.

The Court will grant Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend his complaint to cure

the pleading deficiency in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. “The Court’s patience,

however, is not inexhaustible[,]” despite Plaintiff’s pro se status. See Baughman v.

Interval Intern., Inc., 2010 WL 3328263, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 24, 2010). Failure to cure

the pleadings’ deficiencies in the prior complaints will result in dismissal of this action

without leave to amend.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that on or before Monday, October 29, 2012, Plaintiff shall

file a Third Amended Complaint, setting forth, among all other Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

pleading requirements, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is

entitled to relief, i.e., identifying with specificity the ALJ’s findings which constitute

legal error or were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Benton v.

Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The Commissioner’s denial of disability

benefits may be set aside only when the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or not

supported by substantial evidence in the record.”). Absent a showing of good cause, the

failure to timely file a Third Amended Complaint, alleging all Rule 8(a) pleading

requirements, this action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated this 15th day of October, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01762-LOA Document 9 Filed 10/15/12 Page 3 of 3