Pinzon v. U.S. Health and Human Services

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 15, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-2012
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABRAHAM G. PINZON,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02012 (UNA)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF

No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the

application and dismiss this action.

Plaintiff’s complaint against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),

federal district courts in California, and state and local governmental entities consists of allegations

seemingly related to claimed embezzlement of funds from his social security disability insurance.

Compl. at 1. He also claims that a regional manager of HHS is involved in a conspiracy to “deprive

& intimidate” him. Id. at 2. Plaintiff refers to an attached letter from the manager informing him

that HHS declined to investigate a civil rights complaint because it “does not have jurisdiction

over Mendocino County Sheriff Office.” Compl. Ex. B. Plaintiff appears to assert that this

decision can support a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Compl. at 4. He also

claims that he has been discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

without specific factual allegations relevant to that claim.

1 To plausibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a plaintiff must plead sufficient

facts to “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff’s reliance on the

decision of a federal agency not to investigate a civil rights complaint over which it has no

jurisdiction does not meet this standard. Plaintiff’s allegations against the California Department

of Health Care Services and the Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency—

including vague allegations of fraud and submission of false claims—similarly do not satisfy

applicable pleading standards. See Compl. at 3. Plaintiff has also failed to comply with Rule 8 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief from orders issued in the Northern and Eastern

Districts of California, this district court lacks jurisdiction to review another district court’s

decisions. Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Consequently, this case

will be dismissed by separate order.

DATE: August 15, 2023 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge