Carlson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Clerk to Issue Summons and Social Security Case Documents; ORDER Directing United States Marshal for Service of the First Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/26/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHON KIM CARLSON,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14
15

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

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01459- JLT
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CASE
DOCUMENTS
ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

17
18

Previously, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend because it failed to

19

demonstrate the Court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. 3) On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

20

Complaint (Doc. 4), which corrects this deficiency.

21

I.

22

Screening Requirement
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint, and

23

shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the action is “frivolous, malicious or

24

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

25

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Court must screen the First Amended

26

Complaint because an amended complaint supersedes the previously filed complaint. See Forsyth v.

27

Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

28

///
1

1

II.

Pleading Standards

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and

6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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
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.

14

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

15

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

16

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

11
12

[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.’

17
18
19
20
21
22

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

23

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

24

conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id.

25

III.

26

Discussion and Analysis
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability

27

benefits. (Doc. 4) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in

28

relevant part:
2

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
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.

6

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

7

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

8

“operate as a statute of limitations setting the time period in which a claimant may appeal a final

9

decision of the Commissioner.” Cogburn v. Astrue, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152351, at * 5 (E.D. Cal.

10

Oct. 29, 2010) (citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Vernon v. Heckler, 811

11

F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir.1987)).

1
2
3
4

12

According to Plaintiff, the ALJ denied her application for benefits on May 27, 2015, after

13

which she filed a request for review by the Appeals Council. (Doc. 4 at 2) The Appeals Council

14

issued a notice denying her request on July 29, 2016. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for review

15

would be due 65 days of the date of Appeal’s Council’s notice, or no later than October 3, 2016. See

16

42 U.S.C. §405(g) (noting a claimant is “presumed” to have received the notice of denial within “5

17

days after the date of such notice”). Because Plaintiff initiated this action September 30, 2016, the

18

request for judicial review is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 405(g).

20

IV.

Conclusion and Order

21

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint states a cognizable claim for judicial review of the

22

decision denying the request for Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, the Court

23

ORDERS:

24

1.

Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security;

25
26

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Carolyn

2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with Social Security

27

Case Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the

28

Consent Form, and USM-285 Forms;
3

1

3.

Documents in Social Security Appeal Form;” and

2
3

Plaintiff SHALL complete and submit to the Court the “Notice of Submission of

4.

The U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 4), summons, and this order upon the defendant as directed in the USM Forms.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 26, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4