Wilkerson v. Social Security Administration et al

Filing 18

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 4 Motion to Dismiss.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/6/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ig, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MICHELLE WILKERSON,

12
13

No. C 12-3213 DMR
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

15

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration ("SSA") moves pursuant to Federal Rule of

18

Civil Procedure 12(b) to dismiss Plaintiff Michelle Wilkerson's complaint for lack of subject matter

19

jurisdiction or, in the alternative, failure to state a claim. (See generally Fed. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss.)

20

Defendants Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond join in SSA's motion. [Docket Nos. 8,

21

11.] Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-3, Plaintiff should have filed her opposition or statement of non-

22

opposition by July 12, 2012. She has made no such filing. For the reasons given below, the court

23

grants SSA's motion and dismisses this case.

24
25
26
27
28

I. Procedural History

1

On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed suit in small claims court in the County

2

of Contra Costa Superior Court, naming Social Security1 [sic], Contra Costa County, and the City of

3

Richmond as defendants. (Notice of Removal Ex. 1 at 1-2.) In her complaint she alleges that

4

Defendants owe her $10,000 due to the following:

5
6
7

Because of nonsense with my body and House area surroundings/neighborhood
smaller, unit that get [sic] smaller . . . pain everyday. Stuff that can't be treated with
pills and machines. Fake medical practice[;] ex: buying clothes and they look
different when you get it Home or smaller size[,] Ex: Sleeping and it feels like I'm
having sex and I wake up in pain like I'm on my period[,] Ex: Back hurting like I
Been In a car accident I catch the Bus I was sleep.

8
(Notice of Removal Ex. 1 at 2.) SSA removed the action to this Court on June 21, 2012. (Notice of
9
Removal.)
SSA now moves the court to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on the following grounds:
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff's complaint: (1) does not explain the grounds upon which the court's
jurisdiction depends; (2) does not show that the pleader is entitled to relief; (3) fails to
demonstrate that this Court has any jurisdiction because: (a) Plaintiff's purported
"claim" does not appear to "arise under" any federal law or the United States
Constitution, (b) there does not appear to be a case or controversy, (c) the case is not
one described by any jurisdictional statute, (d) Plaintiff does not demonstrate that she
has exhausted administrative remedies; (4) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; and (5) Plaintiff's Complaint is delusional and frivolous.

16

(Fed. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2.) The parties have consented to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28

17

U.S.C. § 636(c), [Docket Nos. 7, 9-10, 12], and the court may enter judgment in the case. See 28

18

U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-1.

19
20

II. Legal Standard
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are "presumed to lack jurisdiction in a

21

particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of

22

the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A court will

23

dismiss a party’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction “only when the claim is so

24

insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of th[e Supreme] Court, or otherwise

25

completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

26
27
28

1

The SSA interpreted "Social Security" as an indication that Plaintiff sought to bring suit against
the agency or, if the claim arose from the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States. (Fed. Def.'s Mot.
Dismiss 1 n.1.)

2

1

Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

12(b)(1).

3
4

III. Discussion and Conclusion
Plaintiff's claims are incomprehensible and devoid of merit. Even under the most liberal

5

construction, the complaint fails to present any cognizable case or controversy over which the Court

6

could have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate. The court therefore dismisses the complaint

7

without leave to amend.2 See Adams v. Vidiera, No. 00-4586 CRB, 2001 WL 277966, at *5 (N.D.

8

Cal. Mar. 16, 2001) (not reported in F. Supp. 2d) (dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint with

9

prejudice because it did "not state[] a coherent claim against any of the defendants"); Stoddard

11

1997) (not reported in F. Supp.) (dismissing pro se plaintiff's case with prejudice because of its

12

"delusional and incoherent pleading").3

16
Dated: August 6, 2012

RT

18

onna
Judge D

M. Ryu

H

20

RN

LI

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
E

19

A

17

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

R NIA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

15

S

14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

FO

13

RT
U
O

For the Northern District of California

Estate v. Pinkerton Sec. Serv., No. 97-2653 VRW, 1997 WL 732549, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12,

NO

United States District Court

10

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

The court advises Plaintiff that if by chance she wishes to appeal an adverse Social Security
Administration decision, she must appeal that decision to the agency.
3

Plaintiff's administrative motion to reinstate the hearing date for this motion is denied as moot.

3