Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01855/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01855-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA HUDSON D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHERINE L. ARCHUELETA, 

Director, Office of Personnel Management,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-CV-01855-LJO-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND

Objections Due: 28 Days

(Doc. 10)

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff Dana Hudson D. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant Katherine L. 

Archeuleta, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, apparently in her official 

capacity (“Defendant”). (Doc. 10.) For the reasons set forth below, IT IS RECOMMENDED 

THAT Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff has stripped virtually all factual allegations and arguments from her SAC. Under 

the section “Statement Of Claim,” Plaintiff asserts that “[u]nder the retirement plans Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) for disability[,] retirement is five years of service with any age.” 

Case 1:14-cv-01855-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 5
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

(Doc. 10, 1.) Under the section titled “Statement of Facts,” Plaintiff alleges she has “‘completed’ 

28 years and 7 months of ‘creditable service’” and has “made several requests for disability 

retirement[,] however [her] requests are repeatedly denied.” (Doc. 10, 2.) Plaintiff alleges she has 

been found permanently and totally disabled since May 28, 2010. (Doc. 10, 2.) 

Plaintiff references “a letter of denial” dated December 18, 2013, which apparently denied 

her request for benefits because she “will not become 62 years of age until January 28, 2020, [and 

therefore she] do[es] not meet the age requirements for a deferred retirement annuity.” (Doc. 10, 

2.) No facts describing her eligibility or the process she went through to apply for these benefits 

are presented, and Plaintiff does not identify the person or agency who apparently determined her 

ineligibility for these benefits. (See Doc. 10, 2.) Plaintiff also does not attach a copy of the letter 

itself. (See Doc. 10.) 

Plaintiff apparently disputes the denial of benefits, because she “read on the website of 

OPM disability retirement for CSRS is any age with five years of service[.]” (Doc. 10, 2 

(referring to Exhibit A, which purports to be a copy of the website www.opm.gov/retirementservice/csrs-information/eligibility/).) Plaintiff requests the Court “grant disability retirement” 

and award any other relief it deems appropriate. (Doc. 10, 2.) 

III. SCREENING STANDARD

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 

each case, and must dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of 

poverty is untrue, or the Court determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant 

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the 

complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies 

of the complaint are capable of being cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

A complaint 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). Detailed factual allegations are not required, 

but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

Case 1:14-cv-01855-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 5
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

statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint may not simply allege a wrong has been 

committed and demand relief. The pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[;]” the complaint must contain “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). Further, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff Fails to Plead a Cognizable Federal Claim

“[A] pro se litigant is not excused from knowing the most basic pleading requirements.” 

American Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000), 

cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1008, 121 S.Ct. 1735, 149 L.Ed.2d 659 (2001). Plaintiff was previously 

given two opportunities to amend her complaint to state sufficient facts to allege a cognizable 

federal claim, and was provided with the standard to do so. However, the SAC does not contain 

anything approaching a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled 

to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While the SAC is certainly short, even liberally construed

Plaintiff’s conclusory “Statement of Claim” that “[u]nder the retirement plans Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) for disability retirement is five years of service with any age” does not 

state a cognizable legal claim. 

Further, sifting through the minimal factual allegations in Plaintiff’s “Statement of Facts” 

provides no basis for the Court to cobble together a cognizable claim. The SAC fails to even set 

forth “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,” let alone allege “sufficient 

factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 

(internal quotation marks omitted). The SAC fails to set forth any facts demonstrating that 

Plaintiff has been harmed, that Defendant is the party who harmed her, that there is a legal method 

of redress for this harm, or that this Court has the jurisdiction to provide that method of redress. 

//

//

Case 1:14-cv-01855-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/03/15 Page 3 of 5
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

B. Leave to Amend Should Not Be Granted

Plaintiff has had three opportunities to state a cognizable claim, and has proven unable to 

marshal facts sufficient to constitute a cognizable federal claim. “Complaints that are filed in 

repeated and knowing violation of Federal Rule 8’s pleading requirements are a great drain on the 

court system, and the reviewing court cannot be expected to ‘fish a gold coin from a bucket of 

mud.’” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 57 (2014)

(quoting U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003)). 

Regardless of whether there may be merit to Plaintiff’s actual claim – whatever it may be –

Plaintiff has demonstrated that an additional opportunity to amend her complaint would be futile. 

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The propriety of dismissal for failure 

to comply with [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8] does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without 

merit.”) 

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice and without 

leave to amend. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be 

DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twentyeight (28) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

//

//

//

Case 1:14-cv-01855-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/03/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01855-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/03/15 Page 5 of 5