Swoopes v. Social Security Administration

Filing 8

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/13/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLOTEAL SWOOPES, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, and Does 1-40, Defendants. / On December 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Social Security Administration and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Courts must deny in forma pauperis applications under certain circumstances, including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). In contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff failed to file a pleading setting forth the grounds upon which this Court has jurisdiction, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, . . . and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." Plaintiff's complaint was disjointed to the point of being incoherent and unintelligible. Although Plaintiff made reference to allegations that the Social Security Administration may have accused him of improperly cashing two benefit checks for the same month, it was impossible to discern from his complaint the legal theories under which he sought relief or what relief he was requesting. No. 08-05482 JSW ORDER OF DISMISSAL United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Further, although Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. 241 and 246, any claim premised upon violations of those statute must be dismissed because they do not provide for a private right of action. See, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Dugar v. Coughlin, 613 F. Supp. 849, 852 n.1 (C.D.N.Y. 1985). Similarly, although Plaintiff referenced the Due Process clause to the Fourteenth Amendment in the Complaint, he did not allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff intended to appeal from a denial of benefits, it was not clear that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. Accordingly, on December 18, 2008, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint by January 7, 2009. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file a cognizable legal claim by this date shall result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by that date. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment shall issue, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CLOTEAL SWOOPES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case Number: CV08-05482 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION and Does 1- 40 et al, Defendant. / United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on January 13, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Cloteal Swoopes P.O.Box 922 Oakland, CA 94604 Dated: January 13, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?