Mosby v. San Diego County Admin Center

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 7, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01826
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE MOSBY, JR., Case No.: 3:19-cv-01826-WQH-WVG

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ADMIN CENTER; SAN DIEGO SOCIAL 15 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant 19 U.S. Social Security Administration (erroneously sued as San Diego Social Security 20 Administration). (ECF No. 6). 21 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff Maurice Mosby Jr., commenced this action by filing 23 a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, assigned case 24 number 37-2019-00038019-SC-SC-CTL, against Defendants San Diego County Admin 25 Center and San Diego Social Security Administration. (ECF No. 1-2). On September 23, 26 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration removed the action to this Court 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (ECF No. 1). 28 1 On November 21, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration filed a 2 Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 6). On December 5, 2019, Defendant County of San Diego 3 (erroneously sued as San Diego County Admin Center) filed a Notice of Joinder to join in 4 Defendant Social Security Administration’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). On 5 December 13, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration filed supplemental 6 documents. (ECF No. 8). The record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed a Response in 7 Opposition. 8 ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT 9 Plaintiff claims that Defendants owe him $1.00 for “service apart of joint case 10 against San Diego Admin Building.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 3). 11 STANDARD OF REVIEW 12 Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move 13 for dismissal on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Fed R. 14 Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the court has subject matter 15 jurisdiction over an action. Assoc. of Medical Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 16 778-779 (9th Cir. 2000). In resolving an attack on a court’s jurisdiction, the court may go 17 outside the pleadings and consider evidence beyond the complaint relating to jurisdiction 18 without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Safe Air 19 For Everyone v. Doyle, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . 23 a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “A district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or 26 the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Conservation 27 Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). “All 28 1 allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 2 the nonmoving party.” Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ 4 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true 7 all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 8 However, a court is not “required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, 9 unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden St. 10 Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion 11 to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, 12 must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret 13 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 DISCUSSION 15 Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint 16 should be dismissed on the grounds that it fails to state a claim. Defendant U.S. Social 17 Security Administration contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint “makes a simple formulaic 18 demand for relief and includes vague statements devoid of factual support.” (ECF No. 6 19 at 4). The Court finds that the allegations of the Complaint against Defendants U.S. Social 20 Security Administration and County of San Diego “are conclusory and not entitled to be 21 assumed true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81. Plaintiff fails to allege facts to state a claim 22 against Defendants. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant U.S. Social Security 23 Administration (ECF No. 6) and joined by Defendant County of San Diego is granted. 24 CONCLUSION 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant U.S. 26 Social Security Administration (ECF No. 6) and joined by Defendant County of San Diego 27 is GRANTED with leave to amend. 28 1 Plaintiff may file a Motion to File an Amended Complaint within sixty (60) days of 2 date of this Order. If no motion is filed, the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 3 || Dated: January 6, 2020 BME: ie Ze. A a 4 Hon. William Q. Hayes 5 United States District Court 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28