Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01826/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01826-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Notice of Removal - Suit against Federal Officer

---

1

3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG

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

MAURICE MOSBY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY ADMIN 

CENTER; SAN DIEGO SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant 

U.S. Social Security Administration (erroneously sued as San Diego Social Security 

Administration). (ECF No. 6).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff Maurice Mosby Jr., commenced this action by filing 

a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, assigned case 

number 37-2019-00038019-SC-SC-CTL, against Defendants San Diego County Admin 

Center and San Diego Social Security Administration. (ECF No. 1-2). On September 23, 

2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration removed the action to this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (ECF No. 1). 

Case 3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG

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

On November 21, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration filed a 

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 6). On December 5, 2019, Defendant County of San Diego 

(erroneously sued as San Diego County Admin Center) filed a Notice of Joinder to join in 

Defendant Social Security Administration’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). On 

December 13, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration filed supplemental 

documents. (ECF No. 8). The record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed a Response in 

Opposition. 

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff claims that Defendants owe him $1.00 for “service apart of joint case 

against San Diego Admin Building.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 3). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move 

for dismissal on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Fed R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over an action. Assoc. of Medical Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 

778-779 (9th Cir. 2000). In resolving an attack on a court’s jurisdiction, the court may go 

outside the pleadings and consider evidence beyond the complaint relating to jurisdiction 

without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Safe Air 

For Everyone v. Doyle, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a)(2) 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)(2). “A district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or 

the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Conservation 

Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). “All 

Case 3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG

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

allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party.” Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true 

all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

However, a court is not “required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, 

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden St.

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion 

to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, 

must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint 

should be dismissed on the grounds that it fails to state a claim. Defendant U.S. Social 

Security Administration contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint “makes a simple formulaic 

demand for relief and includes vague statements devoid of factual support.” (ECF No. 6 

at 4). The Court finds that the allegations of the Complaint against Defendants U.S. Social 

Security Administration and County of San Diego “are conclusory and not entitled to be 

assumed true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81. Plaintiff fails to allege facts to state a claim 

against Defendants. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant U.S. Social Security 

Administration (ECF No. 6) and joined by Defendant County of San Diego is granted. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant U.S. 

Social Security Administration (ECF No. 6) and joined by Defendant County of San Diego 

is GRANTED with leave to amend. 

Case 3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG

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

Plaintiff may file a Motion to File an Amended Complaint within sixty (60) days of 

the date of this Order. If no motion is filed, the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 

Dated: January 6, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4