United States District Court, S.D. California
William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge
matter pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration
(erroneously sued as San Diego Social Security
Administration). (ECF No. 6).
August 19, 2019, Plaintiff Maurice Mosby Jr., commenced this
action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego, assigned case number
37-2019-00038019-SC-SC-CTL, against Defendants San Diego
County Admin Center and San Diego Social Security
Administration. (ECF No. 1-2). On September 23, 2019,
Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration removed the
action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28
U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (ECF No. 1).
November 21, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security
Administration filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 6). On
December 5, 2019, Defendant County of San Diego (erroneously
sued as San Diego County Admin Center) filed a Notice of
Joinder to join in Defendant Social Security
Administration's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). On
December 13, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security
Administration filed supplemental documents. (ECF No. 8). The
record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed a Response in
OF THE COMPLAINT
claims that Defendants owe him $1.00 for “service apart
of joint case against San Diego Admin Building.” (ECF
No. 1-2 at 3).
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a
defendant to move for dismissal on grounds that the court
lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Fed R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that
the court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action.
Assoc. of Medical Colleges v. United States, 217
F.3d 770, 778-779 (9th Cir. 2000). In resolving an attack on
a court's jurisdiction, the court may go outside the
pleadings and consider evidence beyond the complaint relating
to jurisdiction without converting the motion to dismiss into
a motion for summary judgment. Safe Air For Everyone v.
Doyle, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that “[a] pleading that
states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “A
district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper if
there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence
of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal
theory.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646
F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted).
“All allegations of material fact are taken as true and
construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895
(9th Cir. 2002).
plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds'
of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). When considering a motion to dismiss, a
court must accept as true all “well-pleaded factual
allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009). However, a court is not “required to accept
as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted
deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”
Sprewell v. Golden St. Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a
motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and
reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly
suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to
relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
U.S. Social Security Administration contends that
Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed on the grounds
that it fails to state a claim. Defendant U.S. Social
Security Administration contends that Plaintiff's
Complaint “makes a simple formulaic demand for relief
and includes vague statements devoid of factual
support.” (ECF No. 6 at 4). The Court finds that the
allegations of the Complaint against Defendants U.S. Social
Security Administration and County of San Diego “are
conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81. Plaintiff fails to allege
facts to state a ...