Conley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis 2 ; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/30/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LANA CONLEY,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14
15

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02051 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. 2)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

17
Lana Conley (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action seeking judicial

18
19

review of a determination of the Social Security Administration denying her application for benefits.

20

Pending before the Court are the complaint (Doc. 1) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis

21

(Doc. 2) filed by Plaintiff on December 16, 2013.

22

I.

23

Proceeding in forma pauperis
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “but a

24

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and]

25

that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court

26

has reviewed the amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis and has determined Plaintiff satisfies

27

the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

28

GRANTED.
1

1

II.

Screening Requirement
When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the

2
3

complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious or

4

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant

5

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim

6

is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or

7

not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

8

25, 32-33 (1992).

9

III.

Pleading Standards

10

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A

11

pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the

12

claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may

13

include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

14

A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and

15

succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The

16

purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds

17

upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The

18

Supreme Court noted,

21

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
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.

22

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague

23

and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

24

268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,

19
20

25
26
27
28

[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
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
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
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.’
2

1

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should

2

assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief;

3

conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant

4

leave to amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.

5

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

6

IV.

Jurisdiction
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability

7
8

benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court would have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides

9

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.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Id. (emphasis added). Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the

17

Commissioner shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

18

These regulations “operate as a statute of limitations setting the time period in which a claimant may

19

appeal a final decision of the Commissioner.” Berrigan v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115390, at

20

*4-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010) (citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews

21

v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). The time limit is a condition on the waiver of sovereign

22

immunity, and it must be strictly construed. Id.

23

V.

24

Discussion and Analysis
According to Plaintiff, the Appeals Council denied her request for review of the decision

25

rendered by the administrative law judge on September 17, 2013, at which time the decision became

26

the final decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 1 at 2). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for review would

27

be due no later than November 16, 2013. However, Plaintiff’s counsel requested the Appeals Council

28

grant an extension of time of thirty days to file a civil action on November 13, 2013. (Doc. 1, Exh. 1).
3

1

Notably, Plaintiff does not allege the Appeals Council granted the extension of time, and the

2

complaint was filed beyond the thirty days requested from the Appeals Council. Therefore, from the

3

face of Plaintiff’s complaint, it is not clear that the Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

4

VI.

5

Leave to Amend the Complaint
Leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

6

cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or

7

a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

8

if it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in

9

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

10

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

11

Lake Log Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

12

Here, the Court cannot find with certainty that Plaintiff cannot allege facts supporting a finding

13

that the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the

14

complaint to cure the deficiencies of this complaint by stating the necessary information regarding if

15

and when the request for an extension of time was granted by the Appeals Council. Failure to cure the

16

deficiencies will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed.

17

Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make her

18

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in

19

itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

20

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an

21

amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

22

The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled

23

“First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will

24

be considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 110 and will

25

result in dismissal of this action.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

27

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;

28

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; and
4

1

3.

Plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an

2

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the pertinent substantive

3

law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 30, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5