Coates v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

• Decision Date: 07 December 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11836-DPW
• Parties: NORTICIA JEANETTE COATES, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

NORTICIA JEANETTE COATES, Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11836-DPW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

December 7, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOODLOCK, D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 2, 2012, Plaintiff Norticia Jeanette Coates ("Coates"), then residing at the Massachusetts New England Center for Homeless Veterans in Boston, Massachusetts,¹ filed a skeletal self-prepared Complaint against the Social Security Administration ("SSA").² Apart from identifying the parties to the action, Coates includes only one paragraph for relief, stating:

Plaintiff requests the jurisdiction over thic [sic] case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Reasons Non-Payment 6 month Default on Federal Court Demand Filed Date 03/23/2012 Defendant Caused Detrimental Harm Causing Plaintiff to Be Homeless.

Page 2

Compl. (Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 4). The civil cover sheet attached to the complaint states the cause of action is based, inter alia, on civil rights, social security claims, and recovery of defaulted student loans. There, Coates demands $55,000,000.00 plus interest at 97%.

This action is a refiling of a case Coates filed on March 23, 2012 in the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). See Coates v. Social Security Administration, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00624-GMS.³ On April 24, 2012, District Judge G. Murray Snow issued an Order dismissing the complaint without prejudice to filing an amended complaint, on the ground that the complaint did not comport with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, Judge Murray stated that: "Plaintiff labels her complaint 'Social Security Fraud' and appears to be challenging the denial of social security benefits for her son, on whose behalf Plaintiff has filed this action. However, Plaintiff is required to exhaust her administrative remedies before this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear any challenges related to a denial of social security benefits." Order (Docket No. 7 at 3). There was no indication that Coates had exhausted her administrative remedies

Page 3

sufficiently. Additionally, Judge Murray noted: "Of final note, Plaintiff has improperly named the city of Holland, Michigan - Holland Social Security Administration as Defendant - challenges regarding a denial of Social Security benefits are properly stated against the Commissioner of Social Security Administration." Id.⁴

Thereafter, Coates filed two Motions for Reconsideration, both of which were denied. On September 4, 2012, she filed a Motion to Transfer, which was denied on September 10, 2012. Following her relocation to Massachusetts, Coates filed the instant action.

Accompanying the Complaint, Coates filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2), and a document entitled "Motion Subpoena Felony Complaint" (Docket No. 3) directed to Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf. In that motion, she requests that warrants issue against the SSA for "non-payment on federal court demand that concludes final action and legal provisions ordered by the federal court district ARIZONA.

Page 4

Assigned state federal judge Honorable JAMES A. TEILBORG." Motion (Docket No. 3 at 1). Additionally, Coates alleges that the SSA is in "felony negligence tort-criminal and civil violation reasons ignoring a federal court order failing to meet complaint within a specified time period." Id. at 2.

In addition to the Motion Subpoena Felony Complaint, Coates filed a Notice of Default form (Docket No. 4) including a proposed Form of Default Judgment (in the amount of $55,000.000.00 plus 97% interest from March 23, 2012 to September 28, 2012).

Notably, Coates's complaint, the Motion Subpoena Felony Complaint, and the Notice of Default form are, in substance, virtually identical to other civil actions filed by Coates as well as those filed by her husband, David Lionel Fowler ("Fowler"). See Coates v. Erickson, Civil Action No. 12-11839-DPW; Coates v. McCroskey, Civil Action No. 12-11838-MLW; Coates v. Curran, Civil Action No. 12-11837-RWZ; Coates v. Michigan Department of Human Services, Civil Action No. 12-11834-DPW; Coates v. Social Security Administration, Civil Action No. 12-11832-GAO; Coates v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, Civil Action No. 12-11831-RGS; Fowler v. Berrien County Probate Court, Civil Action No. 12-11828-RWZ; and Fowler v. Social Security Administration, Civil Action No. 12-11826-RGS.

Page 5

On October 9, 2012, Coates filed a "Motion on Demand Complaint" (Docket No. 9). The caption of the pleading indicates the intent to file this document not only in the instant action , but in Civil Action Nos. 12-11826-RGS and Civil Action No. 12-11832-GAO. That pleading names Fowler as a plaintiff along with Coates, and makes allegations that Mr. Rush, of the SSA, made "false malicious allegations all cases were dismissed and closed and they were not obeying the judges order and they didn't have to do what the judge said on the 5th of October, 2012." Motion (Docket No. 9 at ¶ 1). Coates requests payment in full in the amount of $110,000.00 and $55,000,000.00 with a 97% interest. Additionally, Fowler requests $50,000,000.00 with a 97% interest rate.

Thereafter, on November 1, 2012, Coates filed a document entitled "Complaint Amendmet [sic]" (Docket No. 10) in both this action and in Civil Action No. 12-11832-GAO. That document alleges that SSA Supervisor Miss Rada, Mr. Rush, and Mr. Brant committed a felony on October 5, 2012 by "falsely not filing court order in the social security electronic file to falsely ignore and refusal on federal court demand unauthorized criminal activity falsely engaged in practice of law." Amended Compl. (Docket No. 10 at 1).

On November 26, 2012, Coates filed a document entitled

Page 6

"Motion Emergency Appeal" (Docket No. 11)(docketed as a Clarification Legal Statement).

On December 3, 2012, Coates filed a Request for Authorization for Transcript (Docket No. 12)(using Form CJA 24). It is unclear what transcript she seeks; however, she indicates that payment for the transcript is to be made by the Social Security Administration in Brockton, Massachusetts. Since there are no transcripts for this action, it is presumed she seeks administrative hearing transcripts.

On December 6, 2012, Coates filed a Motion for Monetary Relief (Docket No. 13) and an Application for a Warrant to Seize Property Subject to Forfeiture (Docket No. 13), along with a proposed arrest warrant and waiver of summons.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Failure of Fowler to Satisfy Filing Fee and Other Requirements; Effect of Amended Complaint

Upon review of Coates's financial disclosures indicating that she has no substantial assets or income, I find that she lacks funds to pay the filing fee for civil actions. Accordingly, Coates's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) will be ALLOWED.

Next, with respect to Fowler, although an earlier pleading listed him as a plaintiff, neither the original complaint nor the

Page 7

amended complaint names him as a plaintiff in this action. Moreover, Fowler has he signed the amended complaint or satisfied the filing fee requirements. In any event, I deem the amended complaint (Docket No. 10) to be the operative pleading in this action, superseding all prior complaint(s).

Accordingly, I will DISMISS all claims asserted by Fowler in this action.

B. Preliminary Screening of the Complaint

Because Coates is proceeding in forma pauperis, her complaint (as amended) is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).⁵ Further, in addition to the statutory screening requirements under § 1915, the Court has an independent obligation to inquire, sua sponte, into its subject matter jurisdiction.⁶ In connection with this preliminary screening,

Page 8

Coates's pro se pleadings are construed generously. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2000). Even under a broad reading, however, this action will be DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below.

C. Failure to Comply With Fed. R. Civ. P. 8

As with the complaint filed in the District of Arizona, Coates's amended complaint suffers the same defects; it fails to comport with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to include in the complaint, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This statement must "'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2005). It must afford the defendant(s) a "[']meaningful opportunity to mount a defense,'" Díaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 377 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Rodríguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)). See also Redondo-Borges v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and

Page 9

Urban Dev., 421 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2005). "In a civil rights action as in...