Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01376/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01376-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0427 Social Security Benefits

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Anthony Caglia seeks to proceed with an action for judicial review of the administrative 

decision denying an application for Social Security benefits. For the following reasons, the Court finds 

service of the Third Amended Complaint is appropriate. 

I. Screening Requirement

When an individual is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 

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

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

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

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

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

25, 32-33 (1992). 

ANTHONY CAGLIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1376-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE 

SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE 

DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

COMPLETE THE SERVICE DOCUMENTS

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court must screen the Third Amended Complaint because the amended complaint 

superseded previously filed complaints. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 

1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

II. Pleading Standards

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

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

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

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 

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

purpose of the complaint must give defendant fair notice of the grounds upon which the complaint 

stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,

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.

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

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

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

[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.’

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

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

conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a 

complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 

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

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. Discussion and Analysis 

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

benefits. (Doc. 8) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides:

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. 

Id. (emphasis added)

Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be 

reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). The Supreme Court 

noted the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility 

claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Thus, the regulations operate as a statute of 

limitations a claimant to appeal a final decision of the Commissioner. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 

U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). Because the time limit is 

“a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity,” it “must be strictly construed.” Id.

Plaintiff has attached exhibits to the Third Amended Complaint, which indicate an 

administrative law judge issued a decision on his applications on June 19, 2018. (Doc. 8 at 7) After 

receiving the unfavorable decision, Plaintiff submitted a request for review of the decision to the 

Appeals Council, which issued a notice denying the request on May 22, 2019. (Id. at 24) Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s request for review would be due within sixty-five days of the date of the notice, or no later 

than July 26, 2019. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g) (noting that a claimant is “presumed” to have received the 

notice of denial within “5 days after the date of such notice”). However, Plaintiff did not initiate this 

action until he filed the initial complaint on October 2, 2019. (Doc. 1) Thus, it appears the statute of 

limitations may have run on the request for review. 

As the Ninth Circuit observed, “[a] petition to review a decision of the [Commissioner] must 

be brought within the statutory time limit.” Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1971). 

Thus, courts have determined that where a claimant files an action even one day late, the statute of 

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

limitations mandates a dismissal of the action. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 

2000) (affirming judgment in favor of Commissioner where the claimant missed the statute of 

limitations by one day); Davila v. Barnhart, 225 F.Supp.2d 337, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (dismissing 

complaint although filed “only one day late,” observing that “courts have not hesitated to enforce the 

60-day period as a firm limit”[citations omitted]); O’Neill v. Heckler, 579 F.Supp. 979, 980-81 (E.D. 

Pa. 1984) (“[e]ven one day’s delay in filing the action is fatal”); Oliver v. Astrue, 2011 U.S. Dist. 2011 

WL 2669275 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2011) (dismissing a complaint filed one day after the deadline).

Significantly, however, the “sixty day period is not jurisdictional, but is instead a statute of 

limitations which the Secretary may waive.” Banta v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir. 1991).

Although it appears that the statute of limitations may have run before Plaintiff filed the complaint, the 

Court declines, at this time, to determine that Plaintiff is unable to proceed in this action. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Andrew Saul, 

Commissioner of Social Security;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Social Security Case 

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

Form, and USM-285 Forms; 

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiff SHALL complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the Court with 

the following documents:

a. A completed USM-285 form; and

b. Four copies of the Third Amended Complaint filed on February 21, 2020 

(Doc. 8).

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on the defendants and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the 

United States Marshal to serve the defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 5