Michael Cianci v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
This text of Michael Cianci v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (Michael Cianci v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Michael Cianci, No. CV-25-00249-TUC-SHR
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Department of Health and Human Services, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 9.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s 18 claims without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 8 and thus deny the Motion to Dismiss as moot. 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff, a former Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Office of Medicare 22 Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), a component of the Department of Health and Human 23 Services (HHS) (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3, 6), brings numerous claims arising from an OMHA 24 investigation against him in 2022 prior to his retirement. (Id. ¶¶ 6–8.) The Complaint 25 spans seventy-eight pages and asserts a wide array of statutory and constitutional violations 26 including claims under the Privacy Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the 27 Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, the False Claims Act, and the Older 28 Workers Benefit Protection Act. (Doc. 1.) 1 In his Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledges he entered into a settlement agreement 2 with Defendants in a previous lawsuit, resolving his then-claims regarding his employment 3 and releasing claims against Defendants in exchange for a payment of $5,000. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4 151–152.) Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s current lawsuit on the ground Plaintiff’s 5 claims are barred by the settlement agreement’s release of claims. (Doc. 9.) Defendants 6 do not individually address the six counts asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, instead 7 generally arguing Plaintiff failed to plead facts to invalidate the release because he signed 8 a “no representations” clause as part of the settlement and has not sufficiently pled the 9 agreement was fraudulently induced. (Id.) 10 II. Legal Standard 11 To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must satisfy 12 the notice pleading standard of Federal Rule 8(a)(2). See Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. 13 Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2008). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must 14 contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 15 relief,” so the defendant has “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 16 which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. 17 Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Rule 8’s pleading standard does not require detailed 18 factual allegations, but demands more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- 19 harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 20 U.S. at 555). The factual allegations of the complaint must be sufficient to raise a right to 21 relief above a speculative level. See id. 22 “District courts possess inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte a pleading that fails 23 to comply with Rule 8” and can order a plaintiff to replead when the complaint does not 24 comply with Rule 8(a). Beck v. Catanzarite Law Corp., No. 22-cv-1616-BAS-DDL, 2023 25 WL 1999485, at *4, 10 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023); Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 26 530 F.3d 1124, 1129–31 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding a pleading may be dismissed sua sponte 27 for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Robert v. First Haw. Bank, 172 F.3d 58 (9th Cir. 1999) 28 (upholding district court’s sua sponte Rule 8 dismissal) (mem.). A complaint having the 1 factual elements of a cause of action scattered throughout and not organized into a “short 2 and plain statement of the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See 3 Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 A party may seek the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally cognizable cause of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 12(b)(6). On a motion to dismiss, it is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate the plaintiff 7 has failed to state a claim. See Avalanche Funding, LLC v. Five Dot Cattle Co., No. 2:16- 8 cv-02555-TLN-KJN, 2017 WL 6040293, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017). 9 III. Discussion 10 Although Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss does not raise the insufficiency 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule 8, the Court sua sponte concludes Plaintiff’s Complaint 12 fails to provide a “short and plain statement” of the claims showing entitlement to relief. 13 A complaint violates Rule 8 standards “when a pleading says too little,” but a violation 14 also occurs “when a pleading says too much.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th 15 Cir. 2013). The Ninth Circuit has noted “[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair 16 burdens on litigants and judges.” Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 17 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 18 1996)). It is not the Court’s responsibility to review a sprawling narrative to determine 19 which facts support Plaintiffs’ claims. See id. Plaintiff’s Complaint is neither short nor 20 plain, and its length, repetition, and lack of clarity make it difficult for Defendants to 21 respond and for the Court to discern the precise factual basis for each claim. The Court 22 declines to parse each of Plaintiff’s numerous claims where the Complaint is excessively 23 prolix and discursive. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (“[T]he very prolixity of the 24 complaint ma[kes] it difficult to determine just what circumstances were supposed to have 25 given rise to the various causes of action.”); see also Ferrell v. Durbin, 311 F. App’x 253, 26 259 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Neither this Court nor the district court is required to parse the 27 complaint searching for allegations . . . that could conceivably form the basis of each of 28 [Plaintiff’s] claims.”); Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Wash., 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) 1 (“[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”) (citation omitted). 2 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and with leave 3 to amend so Plaintiff may file an amended complaint compliant with Rule 8. The amended 4 complaint must: (1) clearly identify each cause of action and which defendants the claim 5 applies to; (2) state the factual basis relevant to each claim in a concise manner; (3) separate 6 claims covered by the settlement agreement from claims not covered by the agreement; 7 and lastly, (4) plead specific facts challenging the validity of the settlement agreement 8 before addressing claims which would be barred by the agreement should the Court find 9 the agreement is valid. 10 Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss—Defendants have not met their burden 11 of demonstrating Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Defendants have not demonstrated all 12 claims asserted in the Complaint fall within the prior settlement agreement’s scope. Nor 13 have Defendants addressed the applicability of the release on a claim-by-claim basis. 14 Furthermore, Defendants have not addressed any of Plaintiff’s individual claims on their 15 merits.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Cianci v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-cianci-v-department-of-health-and-human-services-et-al-azd-2026.