Ricky Colmenero v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
6
AMENDED ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Plaintiff is instructed to consider the standards set forth in this Order and should only file an amended complaint if he believes his claims are cognizable. Any amended complai nt shall be filed no later than October 17, 2016. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint by the date specified will result in dismissal of this action. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 9/1/2016. (Rooney, M)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
RICKY COLMENERO,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00649- SMS
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
v.
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of
Social Security,
(Doc. 1)
Defendant.
14
15
Due to an administrative error, the Court reissues this order, which was originally issued on
16
May 25, 2016. Doc. 5. Plaintiff will be provided with a new date on which to file, if he chooses,
17
an amended complaint with the Court.
18
19
20
Plaintiff Ricky Colmenero, proceeding pro se, seeks review of a decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.). The court has reviewed
21
22
23
24
the complaint and applicable law, and for the reason that follows, the complaint will be dismissed.
Plaintiff is granted leave, however, to file an amended complaint to remedy the deficiency
discussed below.
25
26
27
I.
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff challenges the denial of his application for disability insurance which he alleges
28
1
1
was not supported by substantial evidence. His entire statement of claim reads as follows:
2
“I had filed a disability claim in 2012 and was denied in 2015. The bases [sic] of this decision was
3
not substantial to the evidence provided. I have documentation of tumors, radiation treatment and
4
chemo. Also doctor letters from both oncoligists [sic] with statements of fighting cancer.” Doc. 1,
5
6
p. 5. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensation for time which he could not work “due to the effects of
cancer and treatments.” Doc. 1, pg. 6.
7
8
9
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)
Under Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must first set forth
10
a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).
11
Judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner is governed by Section 405(g) and (h) of the
12
Social Security Act, which reads in relevant part:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(g) Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security 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 notice of such decision or within such further time as
the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.
(h) The findings and decision of the Commissioner after a hearing shall
be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No
findings of facts or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency
except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the
Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof
shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on
any claim arising under this subchapter.
22
42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (emphasis added). Section 405(g) operates as a statute of limitations
23
24
setting the time period in which a claimant may appeal a final decision of the Commissioner—
25
namely sixty days. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 478 (1986) (“the 60-day requirement
26
is not jurisdictional, but rather constitutes a period of limitations”); Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d
27
1274, 1277 (9th Cir.1987) (“The 60–day period is not jurisdictional, but instead constitutes a statute
28
of limitations.”). And because the time limit under section 405(g) is a condition on the waiver of
2
1
sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 479; see, e.g., Fletcher v.
2
Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Commissioner for
3
untimely filing of one day).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A “final decision” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is reached only after a lengthy process whereby
a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies:
[A] disappointed claimant is afforded a three-stage administrative
review process beginning with de novo reconsideration by the State of
the initial determination. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the state
agency’s decision on reconsideration, he is entitled to a hearing by an
administrative law judge (ALJ) within SSA’s Office of Hearings and
Appeals.
If the ALJ’s decision is adverse to the claimant, the claimant may then
seek review by the Appeals Council. Proceeding through these three
stages exhausts the claimant’s administrative remedies. Following the
determination at each stage, a disappointed claimant is notified that he
must proceed to the next stage within 60 days of notice of the action
taken or the decision will be considered binding.
14
Bowen, 476 U.S. at 471-472. And “[t]hereafter, he may seek judicial review in federal district
15
16
court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Id. at 472. If a plaintiff does not correctly follow the
17
procedure with respect to appealing the ALJ’s decision, the Court is unable to consider his
18
challenge. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000) (“If a claimant fails to request review from the
19
[Appeals] Council, there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases”).
20
21
In his complaint, Plaintiff does not explain how he has exhausted the Social Security
process. While he states the application was filed in 2012 and denied in 2015, it is unknown
22
whether Plaintiff went through the appeals process, which required proceeding through a number of
23
24
stages before obtaining a final decision from the Appeals Council. Consequently, it is unknown
25
when the Appeals Council’s decision became final. Without such information, the Court cannot
26
determine whether Plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed, such that it may exercise judicial review.
27
28
3
Plaintiff is thus advised that if he files an amended complaint, sufficient information must
1
2
be supplied so that the Court can determine whether it has jurisdiction of the action; otherwise, the
3
action may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4
C. Equitable Tolling
5
6
7
8
9
In rare cases, the sixty day statute of limitations can be excused. Section 405(g) has been
construed to permit extensions of time only by the Commissioner pursuant to Title 20 of the Code
of Federal Regulations sections 404.9111 and 416.1411,2 or by a court applying traditional equitable
tolling principles in cases “where the equities in favor of tolling the limitations period are so great
10
that deference to the agency’s judgment is inappropriate.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 480 (internal
11
quotations omitted). For example, the Supreme Court concluded in Bowen that equitable tolling
12
applied where the SSA’s internal policy prevented claimants from knowing that a violation of their
13
rights had occurred. Id. at 481. And in Vernon v. Heckler, the Supreme Court reversed and
14
remanded to give the claimant “the opportunity to delineate further a factual basis for estoppel or
15
16
equitable tolling” based on facts that an SSA employee alleged said, “Don’t worry; they’ll give you
17
an extension.” Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1275, 1278 (9th Cir. 1987). There are, of course,
18
cases to the contrary. In Turner v. Bowen, for example, the Eighth Circuit found “no basis for
19
tolling the statute of limitations because [the plaintiff] had not proved to be a person unusually
20
disadvantaged in protecting his own interests” despite being illiterate and represented by a state
21
representative (who was not an attorney) at the ALJ hearing. Turner v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 708, 709
22
(8th Cir. 1988).
23
Plaintiff is therefore also advised that if he did not file this complaint within the sixty day
24
25
period after receiving an adverse decision from the Appeals Council, he would need to articulate
26
1
27
28
Section 404.911 relate to the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act concerning old-age,
survivors, and DIB.
2
Section 416.1411 relate to the provisions of Title XVI of the Social Security Act concerning
supplemental security income (“SSI”) for the aged, blind and disabled. Plaintiff does not appear to
seek review of a denial of SSI by the Commissioner.
4
1
facts similar to those outlined in the cases above in order to establish this Court’s jurisdiction.
II.
2
LEAVE TO AMEND
3
The Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to address the issue
4
identified above. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must bear the docket number
5
6
assigned in this case and be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” As a general rule, an amended
complaint supersedes any earlier complaints. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir.
7
8
9
2012) (noting that there may be limited exceptions to this rule on appeal). The amended complaint
must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.
III.
10
11
12
13
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND. Plaintiff is instructed to consider the standards set forth in this Order and should only file
an amended complaint if he believes his claims are cognizable. Any amended complaint shall be
14
filed no later than October 17, 2016. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended
15
16
complaint by the date specified will result in dismissal of this action.
17
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 1, 2016
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?