Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01570/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01570-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Review Agency Decision

---

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

DENNIS MOORE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO 11cv1570-GPC-JLB

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Dkt. No. 54.]

vs.

SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Dennis Moore’s (“Plaintiff”) Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Dkt. No. 50.) On September 17, 2013, Defendants

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Anne M. Wagner, Bernard Parker, and William D. Spencer

(“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 54.) The motion has been fully briefed.

(Dkt. Nos. 80, 82.) The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral

argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set out below, the

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s SAC. 

BACKGROUND

As set forth in the Court’s Court’s May 5, 2013 Order granting Defendants’

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, this action involves

Plaintiff Dennis Moore’s appeal of the Defense Logistics Agency’s removal of

- 1 - 11cv1570-GPC-JLB

Case 3:11-cv-01570-GPC-MDD Document 84 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff from an Accounting Technician position in May 1983. (Dkt. No. 45.)

Plaintiff pursued administrative and judicial remedies for his removal. (Id.) Twentytwo years later, Plaintiff made a request for records from the Merit Systems

Protection Board (“MSPB”) and sought to re-open his case. (Id.) On July 15, 2011,

Plaintiff filed a complaint before this Court to appeal the MSPB’s denial of his

request, naming Defendant Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman of the MSPB, in her

official capacity. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

Complaint, adding tort, Title VII, and damage claims as well as criminal charges. 

(Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiff also named Defendant Grundmann and additional Defendant

Anne M. Wagner, MSPB Vice-Chairman, in their official and personal capacities.

(Id.) 

On May 5, 2013, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint, setting forth detailed reasons why Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which this Court may grant relief.

(Dkt. No. 45.) Specifically, the Court found that: (1) it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s appeal of the MSPB’s denial of Plaintiff’s request to reopen his appeal; (2) Plaintiff had failed to show any legal error or new and material

evidence to support his “abuse of discretion” claim; (3) Plaintiff’s Freedom of

Information Act and Privacy Act claims were moot; (4) Plaintiff failed to allege

exhaustion of administrative remedies as required to bring a tort claim under the

Federal Tort Claims Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1064; (5) the Court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Notification and Federal

Employees Antidiscrimination Act claim because no private cause of action exists

under the Act; and (6) Plaintiff lacked authority to bring a criminal Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim against Defendants. (Id.) 

After the Court granted Plaintiff a sixty day extension of time to file a second

amended complaint, (Dkt. No. 49), Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint

on September 3, 2013. (Dkt. No. 50.) Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s

- 2 - 11cv1570-GPC-JLB

Case 3:11-cv-01570-GPC-MDD Document 84 Filed 04/10/14 Page 2 of 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

SAC on the grounds that issue preclusion bars Plaintiff’s employment

discrimination claims; and that the SAC fails to assert claims falling within the

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 54.) 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) outlines what must be in a claim for

relief. A “complaint” is a claim for relief. The document 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). The purpose of a complaint is to “give the defendant fair notice

of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957)) (alteration in original). After amendment of a complaint, the original

complaint no longer performs any function and is “treated thereafter as nonexistent.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)); see also Hal Roach Studios v. Richard

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The fact that a party was

named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the

original.”). As a result, any amended complaint must be complete itself without

reference to any superceded pleading or filed document. See Civ. L. R. 15.1; Hal

Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Here, Plaintiff’s SAC does not perform the function of a complaint. Though

titled “2 Amended Complaint,” (Dkt. No. 50), the filed document quotes

nd

extensively from the Court’s prior orders, (id. at 2-4), references documents

previously filed with this Court, (id. at 5-6), and sets forth legal arguments and 

authority in response to the Court’s May 5, 2013 Order. (Id. at 6-16.) Absent from

the SAC are any of the allegations that appeared in Plaintiff’s prior complaints.

(Compare Dkt. No. 50 with Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 29.) Although pro se plaintiffs are

- 3 - 11cv1570-GPC-JLB

Case 3:11-cv-01570-GPC-MDD Document 84 Filed 04/10/14 Page 3 of 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

generally afforded some leeway in litigating cases in federal court, “[p]ro se

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King

v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (citing United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1165 (1985)), overruled on other grounds, Lacey

v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). “It was incumbent upon Plaintiff

to ensure that the [complaint] was complete in itself.” Davillier v. Perlstein, No.

CV-08-7051 PSG (MANx), 2008 WL 5102014 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

(striking pro se plaintiff’s complaint due to incomplete amendment). Accordingly,

the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC. (Dkt. No 54.)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 54.) The motion hearing set to hear

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on Friday, April 18, 2014 is hereby VACATED.

Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order to file a

Third Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies identified herein and in the

Court’s May 5, 2013 Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 45.) 

Plaintiff is cautioned that his Third Amended Complaint must be complete in

itself without reference to any superceded pleading or filed document. See Civ. L. R.

15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, Plaintiff

is advised that the Court will not grant leave to file a fourth amended complaint. This

is Plaintiff’s final opportunity to file a complaint thatstates a claim to relief. If the third

amended complaint fails to plead a claim to relief, this action will be dismissed with

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv1570-GPC-JLB

Case 3:11-cv-01570-GPC-MDD Document 84 Filed 04/10/14 Page 4 of 4