Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00704/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00704-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shawnella Hinton, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-704-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of pro se Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

(Doc. 13) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will direct Plaintiff to file a Second

Amended Complaint in compliance with this Order. 

I. Procedural History

On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint apparently seeking review of the denial

of her application for disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted. (Doc.

4) Plaintiff has consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Doc.

9) Because Plaintiff’s Complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the

Court directed Plaintiff to filed an Amended Complaint on or before August 5, 2011. (Docs.

6, 12) On August 5, 2011, Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint. 

II. Discussion

A. Screening Standard

The Court has previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

Case 2:11-cv-00704-LOA Document 16 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 6
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 -

and now reviews the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a district court must conduct an initial review of the complaint for

sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the court

determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “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. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave

to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by

amendment.

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

 519, 520-21 (1972), a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading 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). While Rule 8

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully harmed -me accusations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S.___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “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. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief

[is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. 

B. Proper Defendant 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names the Social Security Administration as the only

Defendant. The Social Security Administration is not a proper defendant in an action

challenging the denial of Social Security Benefits. Rather, the Commissioner of Social

Security, presently Michael J. Astrue, is the proper defendant in such an action. 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”). Title 20 CFR § 422.210(d) elaborates:

Case 2:11-cv-00704-LOA Document 16 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 6
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 -

Proper defendant. Where any civil action described in paragraph (a) of this section is 

instituted, the person holding the Office of the Commissioner shall, in his official capacity,

be the proper defendant. Any such civil action properly instituted shall survive 

notwithstanding any change of the person holding the Office of the Commissioner or any 

vacancy in such office. If the complaint is erroneously filed against the United States or 

against any agency, officer, or employee of the United States other than the Commissioner,

the plaintiff will be notified that he has named an incorrect defendant and will be granted

60 

days from the date of receipt of such notice in which to commence the action against the 

correct defendant, the Commissioner.

20 CFR § 422.210 (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not identify the

proper defendant. Plaintiff shall properly name Michael Astrue, the Commissioner of Social

Security, and not the Social Security Administration, in her Second Amended Complaint. 

C. Timeliness of Appeal 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general

subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United

States Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co., 511 U.S. 374 (1994). Federal courts presumptively lack jurisdiction over civil actions, and

the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511

U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court

sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9th

Cir. 1996).

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s administrative decisions is governed by

Section 405(g) and (h) of the Social Security Act, which provide, in pertinent part, that:

(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 shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or

governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United

States, the Commissioner, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought

Case 2:11-cv-00704-LOA Document 16 Filed 08/09/11 Page 3 of 6
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 -

under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this

subchapter.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (h). Section 405(g) and (h), therefore, operate as a statute of limitations

establishing the time period in which a claimant may appeal a final decision of the

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

F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 1987). Because the time limit set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a

condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed. Bowen, 476 U.S.

at 479. “The limitations to final decisions and to a sixty-day filing period serve to compress the

time for judicial review and to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits,

thereby forestalling repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims.” Anderson v.

Astrue, 2008 WL 4506606, * 3 (E.D.Cal., Oct.7, 2008).

Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not contain any dates relevant to her

administrative proceedings. Although Plaintiff attached several documents related to the

administrative proceedings to her original Complaint, doc. 1, those materials are not part of the

Amended Complaint and will not be considered by the Court. Local Rule of Civil Procedure

15.1 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself. LRCiv.P 15.1 (stating that an

“amended pleading is not to incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading,

including exhibits.”). This is because an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once a plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, “a plaintiff waives

all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not include any dates related to her application

for disability benefits and the denial related thereto. Therefore, by solely reviewing the

Amended Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s filing is timely. 

Upon receiving a denial of benefits, a plaintiff has sixty days to file an appeal with the

Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.967, 404.968. When the Appeals Council reviews the case,

it will either affirm, modify, or reject the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) recommendation.

Case 2:11-cv-00704-LOA Document 16 Filed 08/09/11 Page 4 of 6
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 -

It may also remand the case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.979, 404.977. The Appeals Council’s decision

is binding unless a party files an action in federal district court within sixty days of the Appeals

Council’s decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 422.210, 404.981. Thus, prior to filing an appeal in federal

court, Plaintiff must establish that an appeal with the Appeals Council was filed. Any complaint

filed in federal court must then be filed within sixty days of the Appeals Council’s decision.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to demonstrate that she has filed an appeal with the

Appeals Council, and makes no mention of the decision or the outcome. 

As set forth above, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must establish that her

case is properly before the Court and is timely. Plaintiff may not rely on any previously filed

pleading or exhibits, but must file a Second Amended Complaint which is complete within

itself.

D. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Liberally construing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was denied

disability benefits. She alleges that (1) Defendant erred in failing to consider the supporting

materials from Plaintiff’s doctor’s, counselors, family, and psychiatrist, (2) the decision denying

her application for benefits appears to be based on information that does not pertain to Plaintiff,

and (3) Defendant considered only a “limited selection of documentation submitted by Plaintiff”

in rejecting her claim for benefits. Plaintiff’s allegations appear sufficient to survive review

under § 1915(e)(2).

E. Leave to Amend

Although Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains the deficiencies noted above, the

Court will allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Compliant. Plaintiff is reminded that an

amended complaint supercedes a previously filed complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d

1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), and must be complete in itself without reference to a prior or

superceded pleading.

For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

Case 2:11-cv-00704-LOA Document 16 Filed 08/09/11 Page 5 of 6
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 -

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is due within sixty (60) days of the date she receives

this Order. Absent a showing of good cause, Plaintiff’s failure to timely file a Second Amended

Complaint may result in dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a court order. 

DATED this 9th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00704-LOA Document 16 Filed 08/09/11 Page 6 of 6