Rivas v. Kojakazi
- William Alsup
- 3:23-cv-03324
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rivas v. Kijakazi, Judge Alsup denied Rivas’s motion for leave to amend after finding the proposed claims futile.
Priscilla C. Rivas, whose motion for leave to amend was denied, and Kilolo Kijakazi, the defendant who opposed amendment.
What happened
Rivas v. Kijakazi involved plaintiff Priscilla C. Rivas’s request to amend her complaint after the court had dismissed her action. The earlier dismissal found that she had not exhausted the Social Security administrative process and that no final agency decision was available for judicial review.
The court had allowed Rivas to ask for permission to plead certain claims separately and add facts addressing identified problems. Her proposed amended complaint instead removed some text from the original complaint and added no facts supporting her Rehabilitation Act, due process, or “systemic disability abuse continuation” claims.
The court found that amendment would be futile because the proposed complaint did not correct the defects identified earlier. Judge William Alsup denied the motion for leave to amend and ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Rivas v. Kojakazi · No. 3:23-cv-03324
- William Alsup
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
A prior order granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the action under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, because Rivas had not exhausted the administrative process and there was no final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The prior order also addressed Rivas’s assertion that some claims should proceed independently of her request for review under Section 405(g). It stated that those claims, as presented, would not survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court nevertheless allowed Rivas to seek leave to amend so she could plead those claims separately and add facts addressing the identified defects.
Motion to Amend
After full briefing, the court decided the motion on the papers under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and vacated the hearing. Rule 15(a)(2) generally provides that leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires, but the court explained that futility can justify denying leave. Amendment is futile when no amendment would allow the complaint to withstand dismissal as a matter of law.
The court found that Rivas’s motion largely rehashed the earlier dismissal for failure to exhaust rather than addressing the claims for which amendment had been invited. The proposed amended complaint merely struck text from the original complaint and did not add facts curing the identified defects.
Specifically, the court stated that the proposal added no facts from which it could infer that Rivas was denied a benefit of a Social Security Administration program solely because of her disability, as needed for her Rehabilitation Act claim. It also added no facts showing that the procedural safeguards available to her were insufficient, as needed for her due process claim. Finally, it still did not identify the legal authority supporting her “systemic disability abuse continuation” theory.
Disposition
Because Rivas did not show that the proposed amended complaint corrected the deficiencies identified in the prior order, the court found amendment futile. Judge William Alsup denied Rivas’s motion for leave to amend. The court also ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.