1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZOCIMA BARRAGAN, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01073-JES-DDL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS
14 DAVID STEINER, in his official capacity as Postmaster General,1 [ECF No. 35] 15 Defendant. 16 17
18 Before the Court is Defendant David Steiner’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss 19 Plaintiff Zocima Barragan’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff filed an 20 opposition and Defendant filed a reply. ECF Nos. 36, 37. On July 23, 2025, the Court heard 21 oral argument on the matter. ECF No. 38. For the reasons stated below, the Court 22 GRANTS the motion to dismiss without prejudice. 23 / / / 24 25
26 1 Plaintiff named Louis DeJoy, who was the Postmaster General when Plaintiff filed her Complaint on 27 June 20, 2024, as a Defendant in this action. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Louis DeJoy resigned effective March 25, 2025, and Doug Tulino was appointed as Acting Postmaster General from March 25, 2025, to July 13, 28 1 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 2 Plaintiff is a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employee and currently works 3 at the USPS MLS Facility San Diego, CA 92199. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 2. Plaintiff 4 attached a copy of the EEO Final Action and alleges that “[e]very single USPS 5 Management Representative – Supervisors and Managers commit[ed] the penalty of 6 Perjury on a EEO Federal Affidavit.” Id. Further, Plaintiff alleges that she was stalked by 7 a male employee in February 2024, and assaulted at work by a “handicap male Asian 204B 8 Lam N,” after USPS Manager Cherry Ngo yelled at her and ordered the male to harass her. 9 Id. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 12 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6) for 13 failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim. Navarro v. Block, 14 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). When considering the motion, the court must accept as 15 true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court need not accept as true legal conclusions cast as factual 17 allegations. Id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the 18 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” are insufficient). 19 A complaint must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 20 550 U.S. at 570. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include non-conclusory 21 factual content. Id. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The facts and the reasonable inferences 22 drawn from those facts must show a plausible—not just a possible—claim for relief. 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 24 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The focus is on the complaint, as opposed to any new facts alleged 25 in, for example, the opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Schneider v. 26 California Dep’t of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), reversed and 27 remanded on other grounds as stated in 345 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2003). “Determining 28 whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that 1 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 2 556 U.S. at 679. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or “unadorned, the defendant- 3 unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; 4 see also Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 5 B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 6 Under FRCP 8, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim 7 showing the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, 8 and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d). While a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is construed 9 liberally, a plaintiff must still allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim 10 sufficient to give a defendant fair notice of what the claims are and the grounds upon which 11 they rest. Brazil v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). To this 12 end, a complaint must be logically organized and clearly specify each claim, so that the 13 defendant would have “no difficulty in responding to the claims[.]” Hearns v. San 14 Bernadino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131-23 (9th Cir. 2008). 15 A district court may dismiss an entire complaint for lack of clarity when “one cannot 16 determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with 17 enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). 18 Such a dismissal is appropriate where a complaint's “true substance, if any, is well 19 disguised.” Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gillibeau 20 v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)). A district court may also dismiss 21 a complaint in which “‘each count ... adopts the allegations of all preceding counts’” such 22 that “‘[i]t is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support 23 which claim(s) for relief.’” Ewing v. Freedom Forever, LLC, No.: 23-CV-1240 JLS 24 (AHG), 2024 WL 221777, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2024) (quoting Paylor v. Hartford Fire 25 Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2014)). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 The complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 which requires a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 1 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Specifically, a complaint must allege 2 sufficient facts to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 3 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). Here, Plaintiff does not allege any 4 causes of action. She does not allege the violation of any of her constitutional rights or the 5 violation of any federal statute. It is unclear what specific claims Plaintiff is attempting to 6 assert in this case as she does not allege a legal or factual basis or the grounds upon which 7 her claims rest. 8 Plaintiff makes a reference to perjury in her complaint, and it appears that she may 9 be claiming several management employees at the USPS committed perjury on an EEO 10 Federal Affidavit. Compl. at 2. Perjury is a criminal offense pursuant to the following 11 federal statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZOCIMA BARRAGAN, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01073-JES-DDL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS
14 DAVID STEINER, in his official capacity as Postmaster General,1 [ECF No. 35] 15 Defendant. 16 17
18 Before the Court is Defendant David Steiner’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss 19 Plaintiff Zocima Barragan’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff filed an 20 opposition and Defendant filed a reply. ECF Nos. 36, 37. On July 23, 2025, the Court heard 21 oral argument on the matter. ECF No. 38. For the reasons stated below, the Court 22 GRANTS the motion to dismiss without prejudice. 23 / / / 24 25
26 1 Plaintiff named Louis DeJoy, who was the Postmaster General when Plaintiff filed her Complaint on 27 June 20, 2024, as a Defendant in this action. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Louis DeJoy resigned effective March 25, 2025, and Doug Tulino was appointed as Acting Postmaster General from March 25, 2025, to July 13, 28 1 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 2 Plaintiff is a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employee and currently works 3 at the USPS MLS Facility San Diego, CA 92199. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 2. Plaintiff 4 attached a copy of the EEO Final Action and alleges that “[e]very single USPS 5 Management Representative – Supervisors and Managers commit[ed] the penalty of 6 Perjury on a EEO Federal Affidavit.” Id. Further, Plaintiff alleges that she was stalked by 7 a male employee in February 2024, and assaulted at work by a “handicap male Asian 204B 8 Lam N,” after USPS Manager Cherry Ngo yelled at her and ordered the male to harass her. 9 Id. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 12 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6) for 13 failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim. Navarro v. Block, 14 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). When considering the motion, the court must accept as 15 true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court need not accept as true legal conclusions cast as factual 17 allegations. Id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the 18 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” are insufficient). 19 A complaint must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 20 550 U.S. at 570. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include non-conclusory 21 factual content. Id. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The facts and the reasonable inferences 22 drawn from those facts must show a plausible—not just a possible—claim for relief. 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 24 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The focus is on the complaint, as opposed to any new facts alleged 25 in, for example, the opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Schneider v. 26 California Dep’t of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), reversed and 27 remanded on other grounds as stated in 345 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2003). “Determining 28 whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that 1 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 2 556 U.S. at 679. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or “unadorned, the defendant- 3 unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; 4 see also Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 5 B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 6 Under FRCP 8, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim 7 showing the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, 8 and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d). While a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is construed 9 liberally, a plaintiff must still allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim 10 sufficient to give a defendant fair notice of what the claims are and the grounds upon which 11 they rest. Brazil v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). To this 12 end, a complaint must be logically organized and clearly specify each claim, so that the 13 defendant would have “no difficulty in responding to the claims[.]” Hearns v. San 14 Bernadino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131-23 (9th Cir. 2008). 15 A district court may dismiss an entire complaint for lack of clarity when “one cannot 16 determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with 17 enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). 18 Such a dismissal is appropriate where a complaint's “true substance, if any, is well 19 disguised.” Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gillibeau 20 v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)). A district court may also dismiss 21 a complaint in which “‘each count ... adopts the allegations of all preceding counts’” such 22 that “‘[i]t is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support 23 which claim(s) for relief.’” Ewing v. Freedom Forever, LLC, No.: 23-CV-1240 JLS 24 (AHG), 2024 WL 221777, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2024) (quoting Paylor v. Hartford Fire 25 Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2014)). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 The complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 which requires a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 1 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Specifically, a complaint must allege 2 sufficient facts to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 3 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). Here, Plaintiff does not allege any 4 causes of action. She does not allege the violation of any of her constitutional rights or the 5 violation of any federal statute. It is unclear what specific claims Plaintiff is attempting to 6 assert in this case as she does not allege a legal or factual basis or the grounds upon which 7 her claims rest. 8 Plaintiff makes a reference to perjury in her complaint, and it appears that she may 9 be claiming several management employees at the USPS committed perjury on an EEO 10 Federal Affidavit. Compl. at 2. Perjury is a criminal offense pursuant to the following 11 federal statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1002, 1018. 12 As Defendant correctly notes, Plaintiff does not have standing to enforce criminal laws. 13 See Fregosi v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 3:18-cv-5440-RJB, 2019 WL 2502039, 14 at *5 (W.D. Wash. June 17, 2019) (“To the extent the Plaintiff attempts to make a claim 15 under any of these [perjury] statues, [s]he lacks standing to bring them; there is no private 16 right of action under these criminal statutes.”) See also United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 17 1531, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[T]he United States Attorney is responsible for the prosecution 18 of all criminal cases within his or her district.”) Plaintiff, as a private citizen, cannot bring 19 a cause of action for perjury. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss 22 the complaint with leave to amend. In the event that Plaintiff elects to file an amended 23 complaint, she must do so within forty-five (45) days of this Order. The amended 24 complaint must contain specific causes of action, naming the specific constitutional right 25 and/or federal statute Plaintiff alleges Defendant has violated. Failure to file an amended 26 complaint or comply with this order will result in dismissal of this case. 27 / / / 28 / / / I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: July 29, 2025 3 Str J. 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28