Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00283-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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

Christopher Lynn Zaharides (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in forma pauperis with an action for

judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. The Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 4.) On April 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 5), which is now before the Court for screening. 

I. Screening Requirement

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHRISTOPHER LYNN ZAHARIDES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00283- JLT 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE 

SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CASE 

DOCUMENTS

ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES 

MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF THE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 5)

Case 1:14-cv-00283-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 4
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

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

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

Court noted: “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, 677 (2009) (internal quotation marks,

citations omitted). Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of 

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 

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

conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. Leave to amend a 

complaint should be granted where deficiencies can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

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

III. Discussion and Analysis

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

benefits. (Doc. 5.) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides 

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. 

Case 1:14-cv-00283-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/04/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Id. (emphasis added). Except as provided, “[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). These regulations 

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

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

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

F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir.1987)). The time limit is a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity, 

and it must be strictly construed. Id.

According to Plaintiff, the Appeals Council denied his request for review of the decision 

rendered by an administrative law judge on December 18, 2013, at which time the decision became the

final decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 5 at 2.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for review would be 

due no later than February 16, 2014. (Id.) However, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council grant an 

extension of time of thirty days to file a civil action on February 13, 2014, which was granted by the 

Appeals Council on February 22, 2014. (Id. at 3; Doc. 5-1 at 1.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for 

judicial review of the decision is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over his complaint.

IV. Conclusion and Order

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

decision denying the request for Social Security benefits. 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security;

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

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

Form, and USM-285 Forms;

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

Documents in Social Security Appeal Form;” and

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00283-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/04/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4. The U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 5), summons, and this order upon the defendant as directed by Plaintiff in the 

USM Forms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00283-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/04/14 Page 4 of 4