Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01318/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01318-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

19cv1318-LL 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COREY WAYNE ZIMMERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW SAUL, 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19cv1318-LL 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 On August 13, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint without 

prejudice for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 6. On August 28, 2019, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without prejudice for the same reasons. ECF No. 9. 

On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 10. 

 The Court screens Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. 

1915(e). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint still fails to state the nature of his 

disability. Instead, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (like Plaintiff’s original 

Complaint and First Amended Complaint) merely states Plaintiff is “disabled as that term 

is defined in the Social Security Act.” ECF No. 10 at ¶ 5. This generalized legal conclusion 

is unsupported by any facts whatsoever indicating, for instance, why Plaintiff alleges he is 

“disabled as that term is defined in the Social Security Act[.]” The Court is “not bound to 

Case 3:19-cv-01318-MMP Document 12 Filed 09/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1

of 2
2 

19cv1318-LL 

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

accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). See also Eldridge v. Berryhill, No. 17cv497-JLS (BLM), 2017 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 51513, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (“Courts cannot accept legal conclusions 

set forth in a complaint if the plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts.”). 

 In its prior two orders, the Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaints for failing to 

sufficiently outline Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security Administration. See 

ECF Nos. 6 and 9. From the Court’s review, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does 

at least remedy this defect. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the “ALJ’s sole reliance on the 

objective evidence” was “insufficient as a matter of law” and this error is “not harmless 

because [Plaintiff’s] testimony does not allow for work on a regular and continuous basis.” 

ECF No. 10 at 3. Although it is not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to be alleging the ALJ’s 

findings were not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ improperly rejected 

Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms testimony based solely on an alleged lack of objective 

medical evidence. These new allegations do (if barely) provide Plaintiff’s contentions for 

why the ALJ’s decision was erroneous. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is granted until September 12, 2019 to file a Third 

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court has already provided Plaintiff 

with two prior opportunities to remedy the defects in his Complaints. If Plaintiff fails to 

file a Third Amended Complaint within the time permitted, or if the Third Amended 

Complaint again fails to address the defects identified above, the Court may enter a final 

order dismissing the action with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 5, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-01318-MMP Document 12 Filed 09/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2

of 2