Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/23/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RICHARD CASTRO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

13
14

1:16-cv-01390-GSA

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15

Defendant.

(Doc. 1)

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

Pro se plaintiff Richard Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed a Social Security complaint (the

19

“complaint”) on September 20, 2016. (Doc. 1). In the complaint, Plaintiff appears to be

20

challenging a denial of his Social Security benefits. As discussed below, the complaint will be

21

dismissed because it fails to state a claim. However, Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an

22

amended complaint.

23

II.

DISCUSSION

24

A. Screening Standard

25

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the complaint

26

to determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or

27

malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If

28

the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to
1

1

amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by

2

amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

3

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

4

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

5

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

6

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell

7

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set

8

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”

9

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations

10

are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 678.

11

To determine whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the

12

allegations in the complaint as true, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738,

13

740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

14

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor.

15

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to

16

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

17

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after

18

Iqbal).

19

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

20

Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be challenging a denial of his

21

Supplemental Security Income benefits (“SSI”). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has applied

22

for benefits several times due to being overweight, pain in his back and knee, and difficulty

23

breathing. He also suffers from a urinary tract infection. Plaintiff contends his benefits were last

24

denied on March 13, 2015. He requests that this Court award him benefits.

25
26
27
28

C. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Allegations
1.

Rule 8(a)

As Rule 8(a) states, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim.”
The rule expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the
2

1

opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a)

2

does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial,

3

but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is

4

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. As noted above, detailed factual allegations are

5

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

6

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (2009).

7

In this case, Plaintiff indicates he is appealing a denial of his application for SSI benefits,

8

but he has not provided any substantive reasons for doing so, nor has he identified any errors in

9

the decision. Plaintiff is advised that this Court has no jurisdiction to award Social Security

10

benefits. This Court only has jurisdiction to review an administrative law judge’s non-disability

11

finding. However, as outlined below, there are time requirements that must be met in order for

12

this Court to be able to hear Plaintiff’s case.

13
14
15
16
17
18

2.

Timeliness of the Appeal

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s administrative decisions is governed by Section
405(g) and (h) of the Social Security Act, which reads in relevant part:
(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.

19

23

(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 shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or
governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United
States, the Commissioner, 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.

24

Section 405(g) and (h) therefore operates as a statute of limitations setting a sixty day time

20
21
22

25

period in which a claimant may appeal a final decision of the Commissioner. In addition to the

26

sixty day period noted above, Plaintiff must have exhausted his administrative remedies prior to

27

filing a case in this Court. Specifically, upon receiving his denial from an administrative law

28
3

1

judge, Plaintiff had sixty days to file an Appeal with the Appeals Council. 20 CFR §§ 404.967

2

and 404.968. When the Appeals Council reviews the case, it will either affirm, modify, or reject

3

the ALJ’s recommendation. 20 CFR § 404.979. It may also remand the case. 20 CFR § 404.977.

4

The Appeals Council’s decision is binding unless a party files an action in federal district court

5

within sixty days of the Appeals Council’s decision. 20 CFR §§ 422.210 and 404.981.

6

Given the above, prior to filing an appeal in federal court, Plaintiff must establish that he

7

had a hearing before an administrative law judge, and that an appeal with the Appeals Council

8

was filed. Any complaint filed in this Court must be filed within sixty days of the Appeals

9

Council’s decision. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this was done in this instance. In fact,

10

he indicates that he was last denied benefits on March 13, 2015. It is unclear if this denial was

11

from the agency itself, an administrative law judge, or from the Appeals Council. In any event, it

12

appears the filing of this case occurred beyond the sixty day period, and that this Court lacks

13

jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s case.

14

Plaintiff is advised that in certain rare circumstances, the doctrine of equitable tolling

15

allows a plaintiff to avoid the statute of limitations. Supermail Cargo Inc. v. United States, 68

16

F.3d at 1206. “Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two

17

elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary

18

circumstances stood in his way.” Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, ––– U.S. ––––, 132

19

S.Ct. 1414, 1419 (2012) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)) (emphasis

20

omitted). Equitable tolling is only warranted where “litigants are unable to file timely documents

21

as a result of external circumstances beyond their direct control.” Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732

22

F.3d 1030, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008))

23

(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Generally, equitable circumstances that might

24

toll a limitation period involve conduct (by someone other than the claimant) that is misleading or

25

fraudulent.” Turner v.Bowen, 862 F.2d 708, 710 (8th Cir. 1988). For example, in Bowen v. City

26

of New York, the court applied equitable tolling because plaintiffs were prevented from filing

27

because of “the Government's secretive conduct.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 481. Likewise, in Vernon,

28

the court reasoned that equitable tolling was appropriate because the plaintiff had allegedly been
4

1

told by an employee of the Social Security Administration that the deadline would be extended.

2

Vernon, 811 F.2d at 1275. In contrast, in Turner v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1988), the

3

court did not find equitable tolling applicable because the plaintiff was not “unusually

4

disadvantaged in protecting his own interests” despite his being illiterate and unrepresented when

5

he received the letter from the Appeals Council denying his benefits and informing him of his

6

right to file a civil action. Turner, 862 F.2d at 709. Thus, equitable tolling only applies in very

7

rare circumstances.

8

Given the above, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend the complaint to

9

establish that jurisdiction is proper. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must establish that he

10

filed this case within sixty days of the Appeals Council denial of his benefits, or that equitable

11

tolling should apply to his case.

12

3.

13

Proper Defendant

Plaintiff is advised that the Commissioner of Social Security, presently, is Carolyn Colvin,

14

and she is the proper defendant in an action challenging the denial of Social Security benefits. 42

15

U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”). See also, 20 CFR 422.210(d). As

16

such, Plaintiff shall properly name Carolyn Colvin, the Commissioner of Social Security, as the

17

defendant in any amended complaint.

18 III.

Conclusion and Order

19

As set forth above, Plaintiff’s complaint does not state any claims upon which relief may

20

be granted, and it appears the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s case. However, if

21

Plaintiff believes that there are other facts that the Court should consider, he may file an amended

22

complaint no later than October 30, 2016. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he

23

must establish that this Court has jurisdiction. An amended complaint must bear the docket

24

number assigned in this case and be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” As a general rule, an

25

amended complaint supersedes any earlier complaints. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896

26

(9th Cir. 2012) (noting that there may be limited exceptions to this rule on appeal). In other

27

words, the amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or

28

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.
5

1
2

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a First Amended Complaint as ordered will
result in dismissal of this action.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 23, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6