Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00942/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00942-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leianna Bailey
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LEIANNA BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner 

of Social Security,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-942-GSA

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Leianna Bailey (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se and filed a complaint (the 

“Complaint”) on June 23, 2015. (Doc. 1). In the complaint, Plaintiff is challenging a denial of her 

application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). 

As discussed below, the Complaint will be dismissed because it fails to state a claim. However, 

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend and she may file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to 

remedy the deficiencies outlined below.

II. DISCUSSION

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

to determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or 

malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If 

the Court determines that the FAC fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to amend 

Case 1:15-cv-00942-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 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

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint 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, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 

740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick 

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 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) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after 

Iqbal). 

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she applied for DIB and SSI and that her 

applications were denied on that basis that “[p]laintiff lacked the requisite disability.” (Doc. 1, 

pg. 2). Plaintiff has not provided any information regarding the dates her applications were filed, 

however, she indicates that an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision denying her 

applications, and that the Appeals Council issued a final decision denying her applications in 

October 2013. Plaintiff alleges the denials are not supported by substantial evidence. 

Accordingly, she requests that this Court find that she is disabled, or alternatively, that the Court 

order that the case be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Id.

B. Rule 8

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 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)). Plaintiff must set 

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

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations 

are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 678. Here, although Plaintiff indicates that 

Case 1:15-cv-00942-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 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

the agency decision is not supported by substantial evidence, she has failed to articulate any facts 

to support this assertion. Plaintiff must explain the basis for this conclusion in more detail in any 

amended complaint. In doing so, Plaintiff is reminded that this Court can only review a final 

decision by the Social Security Administration to determine whether: (1) it is supported by 

substantial evidence; and (2) it applied the correct legal standards. Carmickle v. Commissioner, 

533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). 

C. Untimely Complaint

Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must first also 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 the Appeals Council and other Social Security decisions 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 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 

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).

Section 405(g) and (h) therefore operates as a statute of limitations setting 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). As the 

time limit set forth in Title 42 of the United States Code 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 untimely filing of one day). 

Case 1:15-cv-00942-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 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

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

which Plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies. Once a denial of benefits is received, a 

claimant must file for reconsideration of that decision with the Social Security Administration. 20 

C.F.R. § 904.909. If the Administration issues an adverse decision, an individual may request that 

an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) hold a hearing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.929. If the ALJ then issues 

an adverse decision, an appeal may be filed with the Social Security Appeals Council. Any appeal 

to the Appeals Council must be filed within sixty days of the ALJ’s decision. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.968. Once the Appeals Council issues its decision, a Claimant can file a complaint in the 

United States District Court. This complaint must be filed within sixty days of the Appeals 

Council’s order. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Therefore, in order to seek judicial review of a denial of Social Security benefits, an 

individual must have followed the appeals process outlined above including filing a complaint in 

the United States District Court within sixty days of receiving an adverse determination from the 

Appeals Council. This is a jurisdictional requirement to challenge the ALJ’s decision; if Plaintiff 

did not follow the correct procedure with respect to the appeal of the decision, the Court is unable 

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

review from the Council, there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most 

cases”). 

In this instance, Plaintiff alleges that the Appeals Council issued its decision denying 

benefits in October 2013, and Plaintiff did not file the instant complaint until June 2015. (Doc. 

1). Therefore, the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be untimely. Plaintiff is advised that 

if the information supplied in the complaint is correct, this action may be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

D. Equitable Tolling

In certain rare instances, the sixty day statute of limitations can be excused. For example, 

Section 405(g) has been strictly construed to permit extensions of time only by the Commissioner 

pursuant to Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations sections 404.911 and 416.1411, or by a 

Court applying traditional equitable tolling principles in cases where the equities in favor of 

Case 1:15-cv-00942-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 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

tolling the limitations period are so great that deference to the agency's judgment is inappropriate. 

Bowen, 476 U.S. at 479-82. The Eighth Circuit, in Turner v. Bowen, explained that “[g]enerally, 

equitable circumstances that might toll a limitation period involve conduct (by someone other 

than the claimant) that is misleading or fraudulent.” Turner v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 708, 710 (8th Cir. 

1988). In Bowen v. City of New York, the court applied equitable tolling because plaintiffs were 

prevented from filing because of “the Government's secretive conduct.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 481. 

Likewise, in Vernon v. Heckler, the court reasoned that equitable tolling was appropriate because 

the plaintiff had allegedly been told by an employee of the Social Security Administration that the 

deadline would be extended. Vernon, 811 F.2d at 1275. In contrast however, in Turner v. 

Bowen, 862 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1988), the court did not find equitable tolling applicable because 

the plaintiff was not “unusually disadvantaged in protecting his own interests” despite his being 

illiterate and unrepresented when he received the letter from the Appeals Council denying his 

benefits and informing him of his right to file a civil action. Turner, 862 F.2d at 709. 

Plaintiff is advised that if she did not file this complaint within the sixty day period after 

receiving an adverse decision from the Appeals Council, she would need to articulate facts similar 

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

III. 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 a First Amended Complaint, it must bear the 

docket number assigned in this case and be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” As a general 

rule, an amended complaint supersedes any earlier complaints. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 

F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that there may be limited exceptions to this rule on appeal). In 

other words, the amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

IV. ORDER

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 she believes her claims are cognizable. Any amended complaint 

Case 1:15-cv-00942-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 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

shall be filed no later than October 2, 2015. 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: August 12, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00942-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 Page 6 of 6