United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Caglia seeks to proceed with an action for judicial review of
the administrative decision denying an application for Social
Security benefits. Because it is unclear whether Plaintiff
has exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing this
action, the first amended complaint is
DISMISSED with leave to amend.
individual is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
Court is required to review the complaint, and shall dismiss
the case at any time if the Court determines that the
allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is
“frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). In addition, the Court may dismiss an
action sua sponte if it lacks jurisdiction over the
matter. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th
Court must screen the Second Amended Complaint because the
amended complaint supersedes the previously filed complaint.
See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474
(9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567
(9th Cir. 1987).
rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading must include a statement
affirming the court's jurisdiction, “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled
to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or different types of
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the
plaintiff's claim in a plain and succinct manner.
Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646,
649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of the complaint is to give
the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the
grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court
Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it
demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague and
conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action.
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” [Citation]. 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. [Citation].
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.
[Citation]. 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
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When
factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume
their truth and determine whether the facts would make the
plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are not
entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The
Court may grant leave to amend a complaint to the extent
deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc).
Jurisdiction and the Statute of Limitations
seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social
Security denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court
would have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 ...