Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01459/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01459-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

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

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

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

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).

///

SHON KIM CARLSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Case 1:16-cv-01459-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/27/16 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 the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and 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.

III. Discussion and Analysis

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

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

relevant part:

Case 1:16-cv-01459-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/27/16 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

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, “[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)). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S.C. § 405(g).

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, the Court 

ORDERS:

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;

Case 1:16-cv-01459-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/27/16 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

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

Documents in Social Security Appeal Form;” and

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01459-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/27/16 Page 4 of 4