United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 11). In a prior
Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs,
otherwise known as a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 8). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court then screened
Plaintiff's original Complaint (Doc. 1) and found
Plaintiff's allegations failed to state a claim for
relief. (Doc. 8 at 4). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to
determination that Plaintiff may proceed IFP does not end the
inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. When a party has been
granted IFP status, the Court must review the complaint to
determine whether the action:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In conducting
such a review, “[i]t is . . . clear that section
1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to
dismiss an [IFP] complaint that fails to state a
claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127
(9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an
original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party
claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends,
unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs
no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the
relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of
several different types may be demanded.
Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations,
“it demands more than an unadorned, the
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S., at 556). A complaint that
provides “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S., at 555. Nor
will a complaint suffice if it presents nothing more than
“naked assertions” without “further factual
enhancement.” Id. at 557.
FAC STATUTORY SCREENING
FAC, Plaintiff provides that in 2009, while working at
“Grand Junction, Colorado VA Hospital, ” she
submitted a “Beneficial Suggestion” as part of
President Obama's SAVE award competition. (Doc. 11 at 4).
Plaintiff alleges that her “Beneficial
Suggestion” won the SAVE award competition and received
“Presidential endorsement” and was
“implement nationally on March 1, 2011 as a mandated VA
Directive #2011-001[;] therefore, she was entitled to
compensation for her “Beneficial Suggestion”
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 4505. Plaintiff, however, avers
that she was never compensated.
FAC, Plaintiff named the United States, the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, and several individual
Department of Veterans Affairs employees. As a general
matter, the United States is immune from suit and can be sued
only to the extent that it has waived its immunity. See
United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814 (1976).
Plaintiff fails to allege any facts or cite any authority
that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity for
a suit of this nature. Additionally, while Plaintiff provides
that the VA failed to compensate her, the statute she cites
states does not require an agency to compensate for
suggestions, it only provides that an agency may compensate
an employee. See 5 U.S.C. § 4505 (“An
agency may pay or grant an award under this subchapter . .
.”). Plaintiff must state factual allegations and