The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant United States of America's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jack Ruben Wadel's complaint.*fn1 [Doc. No. 5.] Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant's motion. The Court in its discretion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) found Defendant's motion suitable for decision on the papers and without oral argument. [Doc. No. 7.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss.
This action arises from events related to Plaintiff's state conviction for resisting an executive officer, and the resulting cessation of his social security benefits during his incarceration. On March 8, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the San Diego Superior Court against the Social Security Administration, which appears to allege various tort and breach of contract claims. [Doc. No. 1, Exhibit 1.]
Although portions of the complaint are virtually incomprehensible, including Plaintiff's enumeration of his purported claims, the Court has discerned the following allegations. Plaintiff asserts the Social Security Administration ("SSA") is liable for breach of contract for its "failure to administer benifits [sic] & intentional infliction of punitive damages." [Doc. No. 1, p.5.]*fn2
According to Plaintiff, the SSA has wrongfully withheld his social security benefits of $800 per month for approximately twenty-one months, which caused his bank account balance to drop below zero, prohibited Plaintiff from paying his creditors, impacted his credit score, and caused Plaintiff to become homeless. [Id. at p.10.] Plaintiff seeks $16,800 in damages for unpaid social security benefits, plus interest at the rate of 55% and attorney's fees. [Id. at p.5.]
Plaintiff further alleges the SSA participated in "obstructions of justice" and "[o]ppression of [his] c[h]arater" by wrongfully producing his confidential medical records to the prosecution during his state criminal trial to prejudice him. [Id. at p.9-10.] Plaintiff asserts the SSA produced records that contained "alot [sic] of fiction and slander," for fraudulent purposes to enable the SSA to stop paying Plaintiff his monthly benefit check. [Id. at p.8.] Finally, Plaintiff alleges generally, that social security recipients such as himself receive "[u]nfair and unequal sentences," and are treated more "cruelly" than others in the prison system. [Id. at p.10.]
Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant with his complaint on or about March 10 or March 15, via first class mail. [Id. at p.15-17.] On April 12, 2010, Defendant removed the action to the Southern District of California. [Id. at p.1-2.] On June 11, 2010, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [Doc. No. 5.]
A complaint survives a motion to dismiss if it contains "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court reviews the contents of the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has a duty to liberally construe his pleadings. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se complaint, however, the court may not "supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled." Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). It is improper for a court to assume "the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he] has not alleged." Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). Similarly, notwithstanding the court's deference to plaintiff's allegations, the reviewing court need not accept "legal conclusions" as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, -- U.S. --, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
"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." Id.A claim has "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 1949. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
I. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY &THE FEDERAL ...