Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00796/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00796-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 19cv796

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

BARBARA MANU, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 19-cv-00796-BAS-JLB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

E. EL CAMINO REAL SOCIAL 

SECURITY LOCAL OFFICE, et al., 

Defendants.

Following this Court’s order granting her motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) and dismissing the original complaint without prejudice, Plaintiff Barbara 

Manu has filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) This amended complaint is 

subject to a mandatory screening given Plaintiff’s IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). Conducting 

this screening again, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal. 

DISCUSSION

Under §1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a case if the court determines that 

the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief 

Case 3:19-cv-00796-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 19cv796

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

against persons immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The purpose of 

[screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear 

the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 

2012)). Under Rule 8, “a pleading that states a claim for relief 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). A district court may dismiss 

a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 when the complaint fails to provide the 

defendant fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 

F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 1996).

In her original single-sentence complaint, Plaintiff alleged an “unauthorized 

third party attached to my benefit and Jonathan Manu May 2019 checks sent to a third 

party financial institution.” (ECF No. 1.) In her three-page Amended Complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges that she filed a “criminal complaint” on behalf of her 21-year old son 

Johnathan Manu and herself in which she claims that the Social Security 

Administration “has attached” a third-party financial institution, Citi Bank, to “our 

Social Security Benefit account” since October 2014 with “each money [] being 

credited to Citi Bank.” (ECF No. 5 at 1–2.) Plaintiff contends that “all our checks” 

were sent to Citi Bank in March and April 2019. (Id.) A May 2019 check for her son

was also allegedly sent to Citi Bank, but a new check was reissued. (Id. at 3.) 

Even accepting these allegations as true, the Amended Complaint fails to 

satisfy Rule 8(a). Plaintiff fails to clearly identify what harm she has faced based on 

the conduct alleged and she fails to provide additional factual allegations regarding 

the alleged attachment and crediting of the benefit account. Critically, Plaintiff fails 

to identify what relief she seeks. The Amended Complaint otherwise fails to provide 

sufficient factual allegations which would establish that this Court has jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal.

Case 3:19-cv-00796-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 19cv796

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

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Amended Complaint 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is provided with leave to file an amended 

complaint that corrects these deficiencies no later than August 15, 2019. This case 

will remain closed if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to correct the

identified deficiencies in any amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00796-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3