Lacy v. Social Security Administration

Background

Edward Dwanye Lacy and Xavier Dwayne Lacy filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse granted that request but found that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The plaintiffs received an opportunity to amend by September 19, 2025.

The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by that deadline. They instead filed a case management statement, a motion for entry of default, and a request for more time to serve the defendants. They later filed documents that they described as their first amended complaint and objected to the report and recommendation recommending dismissal. The court noted that the documents were filed after the amendment deadline and that the magistrate judge had not reviewed them before issuing the recommendation.

Allegations and screening analysis

The filings appeared to concern an April 2013 incident at a Social Security Administration office in Hayward, California. The plaintiffs alleged that Social Security Administration employees verbally harassed and threatened Edward Lacy while he was trying to collect benefits for himself and Xavier Lacy. They alleged that a guard forcibly handcuffed and pepper-sprayed Edward Lacy, and that police later placed a second pair of handcuffs on him. They listed claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and several state laws.

The court compared the documents labeled as amended complaints with the original complaint and found them materially identical. The documents appeared to be U.S. Marshals Service forms attaching the original complaint, with handwritten notations that were already present in the original. The court found that the plaintiffs had not addressed the deficiencies previously identified by Judge Tse.

The court explained that the Fourth Amendment claim appeared likely to be barred by the applicable two-year limitations period. It also found that the plaintiffs had not clearly identified which defendants were involved, what each defendant allegedly did, or which legal claims applied to each defendant. Applying the same failure-to-state-a-claim standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), while construing the self-represented plaintiffs’ filings liberally, the court concluded that the amended complaint still failed to state a claim under § 1915(e).

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. declined to adopt the report and recommendation because it had been issued before the court could consider the plaintiffs’ later-filed documents. The court nevertheless dismissed the amended complaint. It dismissed the case against the defendants without leave to amend, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and ordered the case closed.