The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANTHONY CAGLIA, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1376- JLT
)
12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE FIRST
) AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
13 v.
) TO AMEND
14 ANDREW SAUL, )
Commissioner of Social Security, )
15 )
Defendant. )
16
17 Anthony Caglia seeks to proceed with an action for judicial review of the administrative
18 decision denying an application for Social Security benefits. Because it is unclear whether Plaintiff has
19 exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing this action, the first amended complaint is
20 DISMISSED with leave to amend.
21 I. Screening Requirement
22 When an individual is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
23 complaint, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty
24 is untrue, or the action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may
25 be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
26 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). In addition, the Court may dismiss an action sua sponte if it lacks jurisdiction over
27 the matter. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983).
28 The Court must screen the Second Amended Complaint because the amended complaint
1 supersedes the previously filed complaint. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.
2 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
3 II. Pleading Standards
4 General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
5 pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the
6 claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may
7 include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
8 A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and
9 succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The
10 purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds
11 upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The
12 Supreme Court noted,
13 Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
14 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
15 factual enhancement.
16 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague
17 and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
18 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
19 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when
20 the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The
21 plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint
22 pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of
the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’
23
24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should
25 assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal
26 conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a
27 complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith,
28 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
1 III. Jurisdiction and the Statute of Limitations
2 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability
3 benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court would have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides
4 in relevant part:
5 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
6 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
7
shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in
8 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
9 affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,
with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.
10
11 Id..
12 Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
13 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). The Supreme Court
14 noted the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility
15 claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Thus the regulations operate as a statute of
16 limitations a claimant to appeal a final decision of the Commissioner. Bowen v. City of New York, 476
17 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). Because the time limit is
18 “a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity,” it “must be strictly construed.” Id.
19 Previously, Plaintiff alleged he received notice that the decision of the administrative law judge
20 was final on September 2, 2019. (Doc. 1 at 3) However, it was unclear whether the administrative
21 law judge issued a decision on this date, or if the Appeals Council denied a request for review of the
22 decision on this date. (See id.) Notably, Plaintiff had identified he Appeals Council as the defendant
23 in this action, and it is unclear whether he has, in fact, exhausted his administrative remedies before
24 filing the complaint before this Court. Without additional information, the Court is unable to
25 determine whether Plaintiff’s request for review is ripe, or whether he has exhausted his administrative
26 remedy. Consquently, the information provided is insuffient to determine that the request for judicial
27 review is proper and timely under Section 405(g).
28 ///
1 IV. Leave to Amend the Complaint
2 If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted
3 to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203
4 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed
5 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
6 can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that would
7 entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citation omitted).
8 Here the Court cannot find with certainty that Plaintiff cannot allege facts supporting a
9 determination that the request for review is timely and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The
10 Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of this complaint.
11 Plaintif SHALL provide information regarding whether or not he exhausted his administrative remedies
12 before the Appeals Council. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in a recommendation that the
13 matter be dismissed. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must
14 be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” In addition, the amended complaint SHALL identify the
15 proper defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, as provided in 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d).
16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
17 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and
18 2. Plaintiff SHALL file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of service of
19 this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the
20 pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of
21 Practice.
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated: December 16, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28