United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE SUMMONS AND SOCIAL
SECURITY CASE DOCUMENTS ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES MARSHAL
FOR SERVICE OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(DOC. 4)
Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Sanchez is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with an action for judicial review of a
determination of the Social Security Administration.
Previously, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint
with leave to amend. (Doc. 3) On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 4), which is now before
the Court for screening.
plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is
required to review the complaint, and shall dismiss the case
at any time if the Court determines that the action is
“frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Court must screen the First Amended
Complaint because an amended complaint supersedes the
previously filed complaints. See Forsyth v. Humana,
Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v.
Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading must include a statement
affirming the court's jurisdiction, “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled
to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or different types of
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the
plaintiff's claim in a plain and succinct manner.
Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646,
649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of the complaint is to give
a defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the
grounds upon which the action stands. Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court
noted: “A pleading that offers labels and conclusions
or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677 (2009) (internal quotation marks, citations omitted).
Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of
action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
(9th Cir. 1982). When factual allegations are well-pled, a
court should assume their truth and determine whether the
facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief;
conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same
assumption of truth. Id.
Discussion and Analysis
seeks review of a decision denying disability benefits. (Doc.
4) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), which provides in relevant part:
Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner
made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of
the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such
decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after
the mailing to him of such decision or within such further
time as the Commissioner may allow. Such action shall be
brought in the district court of the United States for the
judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his
principal place of business . . . The court shall have power
to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a
judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without
remanding the cause for a rehearing.
Id. (emphasis added). Except as provided,
“[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner
shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental
agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). These regulations
“operate as a statute of limitations setting the time
period in which a claimant may appeal a final decision of the
Commissioner.” Cogburn v. Astrue, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 152351, at * 5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010) (citing
Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986);
Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th
Cir.1987)). The time limit is a condition on the waiver of
sovereign immunity, and it must be strictly construed.
alleges the Appeals Council denied a request for review of
the decision rendered by an administrative law judge on March
7, 2017, at which time the decision became the final decision
of the Commissioner. (Doc. 4 at 3) Therefore, Plaintiff's
request for review would be due 65 days of the date of
Appeal's Council's notice, or no later than May 11,
2017. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g) (noting a claimant
is “presumed” to have received the notice of
denial within “5 days after the date of such
notice”). Because Plaintiff initiated this action May
2, 2017, the request for judicial review is timely, and the
Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Conclusion and Order
First Amended Complaint states a cognizable claim for
judicial review of the decision denying the request for
Social Security ...