L.R. v. Mueller

Background

L.R., proceeding without a lawyer, sued Robert Mueller and 76 other named and unnamed defendants. The complaint cited 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 242, fraud, and fraud in the inducement. L.R. stated that the case arose from alleged fraud involving the Social Security Administration, while also stating that it was not a Social Security case. The court had previously allowed L.R. to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Because L.R. proceeded without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the complaint was frivolous because it did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction or standing. L.R. relied on 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 242, but the court explained that those are criminal statutes and do not create a private civil claim. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because it did not state the parties’ citizenship or allege that more than $75,000 was in controversy.

The court separately concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Although the allegations appeared to concern an application or claim for Social Security disability benefits, the complaint did not describe the alleged fraud with the required detail, including who made the statements, what was said, when and where it was said, and how the statements were false or caused harm. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately plead the required elements of fraud.

To the extent L.R. sought review of earlier Social Security benefit decisions, the court said that such review is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and related procedures. The court found that L.R. had not alleged the existence of a final Social Security Administration decision that the court could review. The court considered whether any defendants might be immune from money damages, but did not dismiss on that ground because the complaint did not specify the relief sought.

Ruling

The court ordered that L.R.’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief. The court granted L.R. leave to file an amended complaint addressing the identified problems by August 1, 2025. The order warned that failure to amend or cure the deficiencies could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice, in whole or in part. The court also instructed that an amended complaint must include all claims, defendants, and requested relief rather than relying on unidentified earlier filings.

The opinion’s caption lists case number 23-cv-03421-PHK, but a later instruction refers to case number 24-cv-01513-PHK. The signature identifies a United States Magistrate Judge but does not provide a readable name.