The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carla M. Woehrle United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
As stated below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
This action was opened and the complaint was filed on July 1, 2010, when the pro se plaintiff paid the filing fee. [Docket no. 1.] Three motions to dismiss have been filed by various Defendants. [See docket no. 12, filed August 10, 2010; docket no. 16, filed August 12, 2010; and docket no. 25, filed September 16, 2010.] The motions have been fully briefed, and have been taken under submission without oral argument. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 12(b)(1)(for lack of jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6)(for failure to state a claim).
A complaint filed in this court must contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). A challenge to the court's subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, including sua sponte by the court. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988). A complaint may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6, 109 S. Ct. 1827 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989)(unanimous decision). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of a claim for relief. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). "In deciding such a motion, all material allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them." Id. "A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a 'lack of a cognizable legal theory' or 'the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.'" Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008)(quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it discloses some fact or complete defense that will necessarily defeat the claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984)(citing 2A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 12.08).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The Supreme Court has explained the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) and the requirements for surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S. , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)("Iqbal"), Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007)(per curiam), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) ("Twombly"); see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009).
The pleading standard of Rule 8 does not require "detailed factual allegations." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see also Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93; Moss,, 572 F.3d at 968. However, a complaint does not meet the pleading standard if it contains merely "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Instead, to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "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." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). This plausibility standard is not a probability requirement, but does ask for more than mere possibility; if a complaint pleads facts "merely consistent with" a theory of liability, it falls short of "the line between possibility and plausibility." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
The Supreme Court has set out a two-pronged approach for reviewing possible failure to state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; see also Moss, 572 F.3d at 969-70. First, the reviewing court may identify those statements in a complaint that are actually conclusions, even if presented as factual allegations. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50. Such conclusory statements (unlike proper factual allegations) are not entitled to a presumption of truth. Id. In this context it is the conclusory nature of the statements (rather than any fanciful or nonsensical nature) "that disentitles them to the presumption of truth." Id. at 1951. Second, the reviewing court presumes the truth of any remaining "well-pleaded factual allegations," and determines whether these factual allegations and reasonable inferences from them plausibly support a claim for relief. Id. at 1950; see also Moss, 572 F.3d at 969-70.
If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed, the court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if the plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). If, however, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1107-11; see also Moss, 572 F.3d at 972.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was declared a "vexatious litigant" under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. sections 391-391.7 in a ruling in a civil proceeding in California Superior Court, in which judgment has now, apparently, been entered against him. In the present federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he seeks injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment holding the California vexatious litigant statute unconstitutional. He names as Defendants the State of California, (former) Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in official and individual capacities, the Superior Courts of California (in general), the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, and Superior Court ...