Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00694/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00694-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Charles Nash
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00694-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 9)

Screening Order

 On June 14, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, by his Attorneys, Milam Law,

filed an amended complaint. Because Plaintiff’s first amended complaint continues to allege

legal conclusions, rather than facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires this Court again to dismiss it.

I. Screening Requirement

The Court must screen any case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis. 28

U.S.C. § 1915. Screening is required even if a plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an

appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) (establishing conditions under which a claimant of social security benefits may seek

judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination). A court must dismiss any case, regardless

of the fee paid, if the action or appeal is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). 

1

Case 1:12-cv-00694-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Cognizable Claim

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a cognizable claim, a court applies

substantially the same standard applied in motions to dismiss pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 

Gutierrez v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1087261 at *1 (E.D.Cal. March 23, 2011) (No. 1:11-cv-00454-

GSA). “The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v.

California Department of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n. 1 (9 Cir. 1998). A court must th

dismiss a complaint, or portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his

or her claim(s) that would entitled the plaintiff to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.

69, 73 (1984). When a court reviews a complaint under this standard, it must accept as true the

complaint’s allegations (Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976)), construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Resnick v. Hayes, 213

F.3d 443, 447 (9 Cir. 2000)), and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor (Jenkins v. th

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969)).

A. Short and Plain Statement

The sufficiency of a complaint is first determined by referring to F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) which

requires that a civil complaint contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new

jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to

relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought which may include relief in the alternative

or different types of relief.

 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). A complaint appealing

the Commissioner’s decision denying social security disability benefits is not exempt from the

general rules of civil pleading. “While [42 U.S.C.] § 405(g) does not require that a complaint

spell out the basis upon which relief might be granted, Rule 8(a) requires a civil plaintiff to assert

the basis upon which he grounds his claim.” Brown v. Astrue, 2011 WL 3664429 at *2 (D.N.H.

2

Case 1:12-cv-00694-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 6
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

August 19, 2011) (No. 11-cv-056-JL). The complaint must “must simply give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534

U.S. at 512.

B. Principles of Pleading

1. Factual Allegations and Legal Conclusions 

Determining a complaint’s sufficiency invokes two underlying principles of pleading. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555 (2007). First, the Court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations of the

complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

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

statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual

matter accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949,

quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

Although accepted as true, “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). A plaintiff

must set forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555-56

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A complaint appealing the Commissioner’s

denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why

the Commissioner’s decision was wrong. Brown, 2011 WL 3664429 at *3. See also

Demetriades v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4079054 (W.D.Va. September 13, 2011) (No. 7:11-cv-00407)

(dismissing case without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim for relief as a result of

insufficient factual allegations); Ormsby v. Astrue, 2011 WL 3625101 at * 2, adopted by 2011

WL 3625095 (M.D. Fla. August 4, 2011) (No. 6:11-cv-1262-ORL-22) (dismissing cursory

complaint which alleged insufficient facts to state a cognizable claim).

Although the amended complaint is much improved from Plaintiff’s first complaint,

alleging Plaintiff’s severe impairments and relevant dates in the administrative process, it

3

Case 1:12-cv-00694-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 6
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

continues to confuse facts and legal conclusions regarding the nature of Plaintiff’s claim for

relief. In general legal usage, a fact is defined as:

1. Something that actually exists; an aspect of reality <it is a fact that all people

are mortal>. • Facts include not just tangible things, actual occurrences, and

relationships, but also states of mind such as intentions and opinions. 2. An

actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect,

consequence, or interpretation <the jury made a finding of fact>.

Black’s Law Dictionary at 628 (8 ed. 1999). th

In common use, a fact may be defined as “the quality of being actual,” “something that

has actual existence,” “an actual occurrence,” and “a piece of information presented as having

objective reality.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary at 416 (10 ed. 1996). th

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678. A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation.” Id. “Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely

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

State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9 Cir. 2001). th

A legal conclusion is a statement such as, “ There is not substantial evidence in the record

to support the legal conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act.” 

Facts include such allegations as “Plaintiff worked as an auto mechanic until June 1, 1990," and

“Plaintiff was fired from her job when she became unable to grasp her tools.”

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678. A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation.” Id. “Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely

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

State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9 Cir. 2001). th

2. Plausible Claim for Relief

The second underlying principle is that “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for

relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. To permit the Court to determine

that a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, based on the reviewing court’s judicial

experience and common sense, the well-pleaded facts must permit the court “to infer more than a

4

Case 1:12-cv-00694-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 4 of 6
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

mere possibility . . . . ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id., quoting F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The

Supreme Court explained:

In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can

choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than

conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions

can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should

assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an

entitlement to relief.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

See also Cook v. Astrue, 2012 WL 812380 at *2 (E.D.Cal. March 9, 2012) (No. 1:12-cv00347-GSA) (construing that the facts alleged in the complaint related to two legal conclusions);

Sanchez v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1549307 (E.D. Cal. April 21, 2011) (No. 1:11-cv-00607-GSA). In

drafting his second amended complaint, Plaintiff should allege facts from which the Court can

reasonably infer that Plaintiff is entitled to relief .

Specifically, Plaintiff must allege facts to support his legal conclusions that sufficient

evidence did not support the Commissioner’s decision. Simply because Plaintiff is appealing the

decision, his conclusion that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence is apparent. 

To state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff must briefly allege facts from which the Commissioner and

the Court can understand the basis of that conclusion.

III. Conclusion and Order

In rejecting Brown’s complaint appealing the Commissioner’s denying him benefits, the

Court observed, “”The complaint’s sole assertion of a basis for relief is that Brown feels the SSA

decision was wrong.” Brown, 2011 WL 3664429 at *2. Every plaintiff appealing an adverse

decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong. The purpose of the

complaint is to briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal conclusion that the

Commissioner’s decision was wrong. Id. at *3. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should do

so.

Because the amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, this Court now dismisses it. The Court will provide Plaintiff with one

additional opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the

5

Case 1:12-cv-00694-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 5 of 6
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

Court in this order. Plaintiff must revise his amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to

support a cognizable claim. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new,

unrelated claims in the second amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

2007).

 Plaintiff is advised that each amended complaint supercedes all prior complaints, Forsyth

v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), aff’d, 525 U.S. 299 (1999); King v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior

or superceded pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. “All causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567;

accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state

facts sufficient to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order;

3. If Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted, this action will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the

date of service of this order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2012 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:12-cv-00694-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/20/12 Page 6 of 6