Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02608/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02608-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorrie Moss
Plaintiff
Social Security Administration
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

Lorrie Moss, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-02608-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). For the 

following reasons the Motion is granted. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 no-asset bankruptcy on November 19, 2012. (Id.) The 

docket in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case shows a discharge was entered on March 5, 2013 

and termination on March 13, 2013. (Doc. 1-3, at 5.) During the bankruptcy proceeding, 

an overpayment reimbursement owed from Plaintiff to the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) was discharged. (Doc. 8 at 2.) However this amount only included the 

overpayment that occurred before Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition. (Doc. 8-1 at ¶ B-C.) 

There is a continuing administrative proceeding with the SSA regarding an overpayment 

amount to Plaintiff that occurred after Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition. (Doc. 8-1 at ¶ G.) 

 Plaintiff filed her Complaint in Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County on 

October 15, 2013. The Complaint consisted of one hand-written paragraph requesting a 

hearing and damages regarding Defendant’s violation of a bankruptcy stay. (Doc. 1-2, at 

Case 2:13-cv-02608-GMS Document 10 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

13.) Defendant removed the case to this Court from Maricopa County Superior Court in 

December 2013 based on 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to 

dismiss the Complaint and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on January 13, 

2014. (Doc. 8.) On February 24, 2014, after no response from Plaintiff, the Court issued 

an Order stating “that LRCiv 12.1(b) and 56.1(d) provides that an opposing party to a 

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction ‘may, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, 

have thirty (30) days after service within which to serve and file a responsive 

memorandum in opposition.’” (Doc. 9 at 1.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file and serve 

a responsive pleading by March 10, 2014. In the order, the Court stated that “[s]hould 

Plaintiff fail to comply, the Court may consider such failure to respond as consent to the 

granting of the motion. This could result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim(s).” (Id. at 

2.) This second deadline has now passed. 

DISCUSSION 

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2 provides that an unrepresented party’s failure to 

respond to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the 

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b)(1) provides that a court “may relieve a party or its legal representative 

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect.” However, “mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute 

‘excusable’ neglect.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 

380, 392 (1993). This Circuit has made clear that “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same 

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1986); see Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se 

litigants should not be treated more favorably than parties represented by attorneys);

United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants are subject to 

the same good faith limitations imposed on lawyers). Plaintiff’s failure to respond to 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s order are sufficient grounds for dismissal. 

However, as Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss also succeeds on the merits. 

Case 2:13-cv-02608-GMS Document 10 Filed 03/20/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Suits against the United 

States and its agencies are barred by sovereign immunity unless permitted by an explicit 

waiver of immunity from suit. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). The Social Security 

Administration, as an agency of the United States, is entitled to sovereign immunity. 

Gerritsen v. Consulado General de Mexico, 988 F.2d 340, 343 (9th Cir. 1993). No 

statutory waiver of sovereign immunity is applicable. At any rate, statutory waivers of 

sovereign immunity are strictly construed and any ambiguities resolved against allowing 

suit. United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 531 (1995); See also United States v. 

Nordic Village, 503 U.S. 30, 37 (1992). This Court does not have jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case. Nor does the state court where the Complaint was originally 

filed. 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this 

action and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 20th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02608-GMS Document 10 Filed 03/20/14 Page 3 of 3