Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01442/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01442-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARLEY McNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01442- SMS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1) 

Plaintiff Harley McNeil, proceeding pro se, seeks review of a decision of the Commissioner 

of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability insurance benefits 

(“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.). The court has reviewed the 

complaint and applicable law, and for the reasons that follow, the complaint will be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is granted leave, however, to file an amended complaint to remedy 

the deficiencies discussed below. 

I. DISCUSSION

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

determine whether it “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If the 

Court finds any such deficiency, the complaint must be dismissed. Id. But leave to amend the 

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 7
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

2

complaint may be granted where the deficiencies can be cured by amendment. Cato v. United 

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

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

allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976), and construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Resnick v. 

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that pro se filings should continue to be liberally construed after 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ).

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

In his complaint, Plaintiff challenges the denial of his DIB application, taking particular 

issue with the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) analysis of his alleged mental impairments. 

According to Plaintiff, “the decision to deny [the DIB] . . . was not cohesive to the condition of 

Traumatic Brain Injury.” Doc. 1. Specifically, he contends: “Judge Tamia Gordon may have 

made incorrect decisions and lack of consideration for all aspects of the problems of brain damage 

in her ruling,” Doc. 1., pg. 2; she “made her evaluation through the five steps with her conclusion 

through these steps that did not comprehend [sic] fully problems concerning brain injury disability 

of the person of Harley McNeil,” Doc. 1, pg. 2; and “[t]he decision seemed to make an issue about 

how much weight Harley can carry or pick up,” Doc. 1, pg. 7. 

Plaintiff states that “[h]e has exhausted all availability [sic] of Social Security process 

resources; Security Application decision, Reconsideration, ALJ decision Denial, and decision of the 

Appeals Council,” but provides no specific dates related to his application, requests for 

reconsideration and appeal, and the decisions rendered. There is reference to only two dates: (1) 

When discussing the ALJ’s decision, Plaintiff states, “Judge Tamia N. Gordon mentioned these 

types of reports in her five point regulated denial from the . . . hearing on 1/31/14,” Doc. 1, pg. 3; 

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 7
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

and (2) when discussing his inability to access his Social Security records, Plaintiff states, “[a]t the 

time of his application for disability benefits in 2013, [Plaintiff] was being denied records from the 

Social Security Office in Madera and Fresno.” Doc. 1, pg. 13. 

In sum, Plaintiff requests that the Court remand the Commissioner’s decision. 

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)

Under Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must first set forth 

a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). 

Judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner 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.

(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 of Social Security 

shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency 

except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the 

Commissioner of Social Security, 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.

42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (emphasis added). Section 405(g) operates as a statute of limitations 

setting the time period in which a claimant may appeal a final decision of the Commissioner—

namely sixty days. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 478 (1986) (“the 60-day requirement 

is not jurisdictional, but rather constitutes a period of limitations”); Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 

1274, 1277 (9th Cir.1987) (“The 60–day period is not jurisdictional, but instead constitutes a statute 

of limitations.”). And because the time limit under section 405(g) is a condition on the waiver of 

sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 479; see, e.g., Fletcher v. 

Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Commissioner for 

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 11/19/15 Page 3 of 7
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

untimely filing of one day). 

A “final decision” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is reached only after a lengthy process whereby

a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies as follows: 

[A] disappointed claimant is afforded a three-stage administrative 

review process beginning with de novo reconsideration by the State of 

the initial determination. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the state 

agency’s decision on reconsideration, he is entitled to a hearing by an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) within SSA’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. 

If the ALJ’s decision is adverse to the claimant, the claimant may then 

seek review by the Appeals Council. Proceeding through these three 

stages exhausts the claimant’s administrative remedies. Following the 

determination at each stage, a disappointed claimant is notified that he 

must proceed to the next stage within 60 days of notice of the action 

taken or the decision will be considered binding. 

Bowen, 476 U.S. at 471-472. And “[t]hereafter, he may seek judicial review in federal district 

court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Id. at 472. If a plaintiff does not correctly follow the 

procedure with respect to appealing the ALJ’s decision, the Court is unable to consider his

challenge. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000) (“If a claimant fails to request review from the 

[Appeals] Council, there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases”). 

While Plaintiff claims he has “exhausted” the Social Security process, it is unknown 

whether Plaintiff went through the appeals process, which required proceeding through a number of 

stages before obtaining a final decision from the Appeals Council. If so, it is unknown when the

Appeals Council’s decision became final. Without such information, the Court cannot determine 

whether Plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed, such that it may exercise judicial review. 

Plaintiff is thus advised that if he files an amended complaint, sufficient information must

be supplied so that the Court can determine whether it has jurisdiction of the action; otherwise, the 

action may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

C. Equitable Tolling

In rare cases, the sixty day statute of limitations can be excused. Section 405(g) has been 

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 11/19/15 Page 4 of 7
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

5

construed to permit extensions of time only by the Commissioner pursuant to Title 20 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations sections 404.9111and 416.1411,2or by a court applying traditional equitable 

tolling principles in cases “where the equities in favor of tolling the limitations period are so great 

that deference to the agency’s judgment is inappropriate.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 480 (internal 

quotations omitted). For example, the Supreme Court concluded in Bowen that equitable tolling 

applied where the SSA’s internal policy prevented claimants from knowing that a violation of their 

rights had occurred. Id. at 481. And in Vernon v. Heckler, the Supreme Court reversed and 

remanded to give the claimant “the opportunity to delineate further a factual basis for estoppel or 

equitable tolling” based on facts that an SSA employee alleged said, “Don’t worry; they’ll give you 

an extension.” Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1275, 1278 (9th Cir. 1987). There are, of course, 

cases to the contrary. In Turner v. Bowen, for example, the Eighth Circuit found “no basis for 

tolling the statute of limitations because [the plaintiff] had not proved to be a person unusually 

disadvantaged in protecting his own interests” despite being illiterate and represented by a state 

representative (who was not an attorney) at the ALJ hearing. Turner v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 708, 709 

(8th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff is therefore also advised that if he did not file this complaint within the sixty day 

period after receiving an adverse decision from the Appeals Council, he would need to articulate 

facts similar to those outlined in the cases above in order to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. 

D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)

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

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

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

 1

Section 404.911 relate to the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act concerning old-age, 

survivors, and DIB. 2

 Section 416.1411 relate to the provisions of Title XVI of the Social Security Act concerning 

supplemental security income (“SSI”) for the aged, blind and disabled. Plaintiff does not appear to

seek review of a denial of SSI by the Commissioner.

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 11/19/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

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

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth 

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

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). And 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.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). But while factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. 

The complaint here contains recitations of Plaintiff’s medical history, his criminal past and 

family background. There is reference to legal authority by citation to one case, some federal 

statutes and regulations, and a handful of websites. As noted, Plaintiff contends: “Judge Tamia 

Gordon may have made incorrect decisions and lack of consideration for all aspects of the problems 

of brain damage in her ruling,” Doc. 1., pg. 2; she “made her evaluation through the five steps with 

her conclusion through these steps that did not comprehend [sic] fully problems concerning brain 

injury disability of the person of Harley McNeil,” Doc. 1, pg. 2; and “[t]he decision seemed to 

make an issue about how much weight Harley can carry or pick up,” Doc. 1, pg. 7. But these 

conclusory statements are supported with little factual allegations which explain how the ALJ erred. 

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must explain the basis for these 

conclusions in more detail in the FAC. And in doing so, Plaintiff is further reminded that this Court 

can only review a final decision by the Social Security Administration to determine: (1) whether it 

is supported by substantial evidence; and (2) whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. 

Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008).

II. LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to address the issues 

identified above. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must bear the docket number 

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

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 11/19/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

complaint supersedes any earlier complaints. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that there may be limited exceptions to this rule on appeal). The amended complaint 

must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff is instructed to consider the standards set forth in this Order and should only file 

an amended complaint if he believes his claims are cognizable. Any amended complaint shall be 

filed no later than January 4, 2016. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint 

by the date specified will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 11/19/15 Page 7 of 7