Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00344/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00344-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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 

Michael A. McCoy, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

No. CV15-0344-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On February 25, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Michael A. McCoy filed a complaint 

against the Social Security Administration. Doc. 1. The Court screened the complaint 

and dismissed it without prejudice for failure to state a claim, but allowed Plaintiff to file 

an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2015. The 

Court has screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and will dismiss it without prejudice 

for failure to state a claim. 

I. Legal Standard. 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that 

states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This short and plain statement 

“need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 

F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-DGC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

truthfulness and “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not 

sufficient.” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). Dismissal is 

appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks sufficient facts 

alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or contains allegations disclosing some absolute 

defense or bar to recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 

(9th Cir. 1988). 

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint.

 Plaintiff sues the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).1

 Plaintiff appears to 

assert that the SSA violated a “treaty or agreement” between the United States and 

Germany and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments by “refus[ing] to comply with 

a system set up to protect against lost retirement credits of a US citizen (myself) while 

working abroad.” Doc. 7 at 1-2. Plaintiff seeks an award of credits he allegedly earned 

while working in Germany, as well as $200,000 in punitive damages. Id. 

The amended complaint does not satisfy federal pleading requirements. The 

complaint does not identify the “treaty or agreement” under which he sues, does not 

explain the “system” he alleges was established to protect him, and does not identify the 

cause of action that exists under the treaty or agreement. The amended complaint does 

not cite the Social Security Act’s judicial review provision or demonstrate compliance 

with its requirements for obtaining judicial review of SSA decisions. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). And to the extent the amended complaint asserts constitutional claims, they are 

foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) 

(there is no constitutional cause of action where an applicant alleges that the SSA 

unconstitutionally withheld disability benefits). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint for failure to state a claim. 

/ / / 

 

1

 This case was designated as an action for review of a determination of the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, but the Court finds nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint suggesting he seeks such review. The Court therefore will not place this case on an expedited track. 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-DGC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

III. Leave to Amend and Plaintiff’s Obligations. 

In this circuit, “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her 

complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 

cured by amendment.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Although Plaintiff has twice failed to state a claim, the Court will permit him 

one final opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file his second 

amended complaint on or before November 20, 2015. 

Plaintiff is again advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s 

office. For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a 

demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be 

set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph 

“must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

The “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not 

only designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to 

render the claim plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). If Plaintiff 

chooses to file an amended complaint asserting constitutional violations by federal or 

state officials, his pleading should include a statement of the constitutional rights Plaintiff 

believes to have been violated, how each right was violated, how each defendant 

contributed to the violation, and what injury was caused by each alleged constitutional 

violation. Such factual allegations must provide enough information to “allow[ ] the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-DGC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se 

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 7) is dismissed without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff shall have until November 20, 2015 to file an amended complaint. 

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the 

Court if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on or before 

November 20, 2015. 

Dated this 22nd day of October, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-DGC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 4 of 4