Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Velma Bates, who is proceeding pro se, sued the Social Security Administration in the Eastern District of California on June 8, 2026. The court granted her application to proceed in forma pauperis on July 1, 2026, with notice that service would wait until the complaint was screened. On July 10, 2026, the court screened the complaint for subject-matter jurisdiction only and found no adequate basis for it, but allowed her to amend. She timely filed an amended complaint, which the court screened again on the same limited ground.
On the form, Bates checked federal question as the jurisdictional basis. Asked to identify the federal statutes, treaties, or constitutional provisions at issue, she wrote that she was underpaid and that multiple hearings she requested were never held. She alleged she is entitled to benefits because of a disability and asked the court to order the agency to release her full benefits and any back pay. These are her allegations only. The court made no findings on whether she is owed benefits or whether the agency failed to hold hearings.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded it could not tell whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but a pro se plaintiff must still adequately allege jurisdiction, and the court has an independent obligation to examine it. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists only when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint. The amended complaint was sparse on facts and did not identify any federal law under which the claims arise. Listing the Social Security Administration as defendant did not by itself supply federal question jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend, not as a final judgment, and gave Bates a final opportunity to file a second amended complaint if she can do so in good faith. The pleading is due within thirty days of service of the order, may not exceed twenty-five pages including attachments, and must be complete in itself under Local Rule 220. It should state what each defendant did that violated her rights, with facts sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. The clerk was directed to send her a civil rights complaint form.
The order also requires a certification under penalty of perjury that she either did or did not use artificial intelligence in drafting. If she did, she must certify that she checked that every citation exists and supports the stated proposition. A failure to certify will lead the court to strike the pleading. If she does not file a compliant second amended complaint, the court will recommend to a district judge that the action be dismissed. That is only a recommendation, and no final judgment has been entered.
Key Takeaways
- Checking the federal question box and naming a federal agency as defendant does not establish jurisdiction; the complaint must show a federal law under which the claim arises.
- This is a screening order dismissing with leave to amend, so the case remains open and no merits ruling on any benefits claim has been made.
- The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests on the party asserting it, and pro se status does not relieve a plaintiff of that burden.
- The second amended complaint must be self-contained, capped at twenty-five pages, and accompanied by an AI-use certification, or it risks being struck.
- Missing the thirty-day deadline or filing a noncompliant pleading would lead to a recommendation of dismissal, which a district judge would then decide.
Why It Matters
This is a routine magistrate judge screening order in an unreported district court case, so it carries no precedential weight. It applies settled principles from Arbaugh, Kokkonen and Caterpillar to a benefits dispute in which the plaintiff named no federal law. It does not decide whether the court could hear a challenge to a benefits determination or which statute might apply, because the court examined only whether the pleading showed a basis for jurisdiction.
The order's practical interest is its AI certification requirement, which requires a pro se litigant to state whether AI was used and to verify any citations. Because it is one judge's case-management directive in a single proceeding, it should not be read as a general rule across the district. What remains open is whether Bates can plead a jurisdictional basis in her second amended complaint.