Currier v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for reconsideration filed by pro se plaintiff Richard Currier, which sought to overturn a prior order requiring him to file an amended complaint meeting federal pleading standards. The court denied the motion, clarifying that judicial notice of social security records does not cure pleading defects, and warned that failure to file the amended complaint could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Currier’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's attempt to use judicial notice of a social security record to prove ADA disability was legally insufficient, as ADA disability is distinct from SSI eligibility. Furthermore, the court correctly noted that this specific issue did not address the other pleading defects identified in the prior order. The denial is supported by the record and applicable law. |
Order to File Amended Complaint Reaffirmed“Currier must still comply with the Court’s March 2 order. This means, among other things, that he must file an amended complaint that complies with federal pleading standards.” | agree with court The court reaffirmed its prior directive to amend the complaint, which is a standard procedural mechanism to allow a plaintiff to cure pleading deficiencies. The warning regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly construes the plaintiff's confusing filing as a motion for reconsideration, applies the correct legal standard regarding the distinction between SSI and ADA disability, and clearly states the consequences of non-compliance. It does not rely on any misapplied authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD SCOTT CURRIER Case No.: 20cv227-LAB (JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION 14 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On March 2, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff Richard Currier’s two 19 motions to proceed in forma pauperis, certifying that his interlocutory appeal was 20 not taken in good faith, and ordering Currier to continue litigating this case. 21 Specifically, Currier was required to file an amended complaint that complies with 22 federal pleading standards. The order sua sponte extended the deadline for him 23 to do that, to March 24, 2020. 24 Currier has now submitted a document called “Notice of Filing a Proposed 25 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion [Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 201].” The 26 Court has accepted this for filing as a motion for reconsideration of the March 2 27 order. The body of the document also identifies itself as some kind of motion or 28 request. Attached to the main document is a proposed order granting a request for 1 judicial notice. Although the order says the motion is or will be set for argument, 2 Currier did not obtain a hearing date. This motion is not scheduled for argument or 3 hearing. 4 The request is difficult to understand, but apparently the gist of it is that 5 Currier disagrees with the March 2 order. The Court therefore construes it as a 6 motion for reconsideration of that order. 7 Currier apparently thinks he is being asked to produce evidence, and is trying 8 to do that by asking the Court to take judicial notice of his social security record, 9 which was attached to his state court complaint. He is not being asked to produce 10 evidence, and asking the Court to take judicial notice of documents is not a 11 substitute for filing a complaint that meets federal pleading standards. Currier is 12 bringing a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and even if 13 Currier were to allege that he was receiving social security disability benefits at the 14 time Defendants discriminated against him, this is not the same as alleging he was 15 disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 16 1351, 1354 n.2 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that “disability” is defined differently for 17 purposes of disability benefits and the ADA); Iceberg v. Martin, 2017 WL 396438, 18 at *7 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 30, 2017) (collecting cases). And even if the Court were 19 to take notice of the document, there are several other defects in his complaint that 20 this document has nothing to do with. 21 To the extent Currier is attempting to make other arguments or requests, 22 either they pertain to matters not before the Court (such as admissibility of 23 evidence neither party offered and the Court did not request), or he has not raised 24 them clearly enough. Currier’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 25 Currier must still comply with the Court’s March 2 order. This means, among 26 other things, that he must file an amended complaint that complies with federal 27 pleading standards. He cannot rely on the Court or Defendants to look through the 28 record and plead his case for him. He should assume that no more requests for 1 ||reconsideration of that order will be considered or granted. If Currier does not file 2 amended complaint as ordered, his ADA claim may be dismissed for failure to 3 || prosecute. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 5, 2020 7 / tM 4. (Ba ny 8 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28