Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01376/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01376-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Caglia
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Anthony Caglia seeks judicial review of the administrative decision denying an application for 

Social Security benefits. Because it is unclear whether the request for judicial review is timely and the 

Court has jurisdiction over this action, the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to 

amend. 

I. Screening Requirement

When an individual is proceeding 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 allegation of poverty 

is untrue, or the action or appeal 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). In addition, the Court may dismiss an action sua sponte if it lacks jurisdiction over 

the matter. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Court must screen the Second Amended Complaint because the amended complaint 

ANTHONY CAGLIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, 

Commissioner of Social Security ,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1376 JLT

ORDER DISMISSING THE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 5
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

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).

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. The Court may grant leave to amend a 

complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 

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

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 5
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

III. Jurisdiction

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

benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court would 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.

Id. (emphasis added). 

Except as provided by statute, “[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). The Supreme Court 

noted the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility 

claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Thus the regulations operate as a statute of 

limitations a claimant to appeal a final decision of the Commissioner. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 

U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). Because the time limit is 

“a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity,” it “must be strictly construed.” Id.

IV. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiff fails to include any allegations regarding the pursuit of administrative remedies related 

to the decision of the administrative law judge, or when the administrative law judge issued an opinion 

on his application. (See Doc. 6 at 1-4) However, Plaintiff has attached several documents to the 

Second Amended Complaint, which the Court has reviewed. 

From the exhibits, it appears Plaintiff submitted a claim for benefits under Title II of the Social 

Security Act in 2015. (See Doc. 6 at 5, 10) When the application was denied, Plaintiff filed a request 

for a hearing. (Id. at 13) An administrative law judge held the hearing and issued a written decision 

on June 19, 2018. (Id. at 13, 20) Plaintiff requested review of the decision by the Appeals Council, 

which issued a notice denying the request on May 22, 2019. (Id. at 30) At that time, Plaintiff was 

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 5
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

notified that he had “60 days to file a civil action (ask for court review),” and the date “July 21, 2019” 

was handwritten by an unidentified individual on the first page of the notice. (Id.) Plaintiff also 

received a second notice of the final decision on July 2, 2019, from Devin Nunes, Member of 

Congress, who relayed correspondence from the Social Security Adminsitration stating:

"Thank you for your inquiry on Mr. Anthony Caglia disability claim. Mr. Caglia filed 

for SSDI. His initial application has been denied on 03/27/15 and again at the 

Reconsideration, and the ALJ. He recently received an Appeal Council (AC) denial 

decision on 05/22/19. At this point his claim is closed. He can either file a federal 

court case or a new claim."

(Id. at 34) 

Because the decision to deny benefits became the final decision of the Commissioner on May 

22, 2019, Plaintiff’s request for review would be due within sixty-five days of the date of Appeal’s 

Council’s notice, or no later than July 26, 2019. Seee 42 U.S.C. §405(g) (noting that a claimant is 

“presumed” to have received the notice of denial within “5 days after the date of such notice”). 

However, Plaintiff did not initiate this action until October 1, 2019. Thus, it appears the statute of 

limitations may have run on the request for review. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 

2000) (affirming judgment in favor of Commissioner where the claimant missed the statute of

limitations by one day).

On the other hand, there are two exceptions to the statute of limitations: (1) the Commissioner 

may grant an extension of time to file a civil action, and (2) the statute of limitations may be tolled 

through the doctrine of “equitable tolling.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 479-80; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Here, 

however, Plaintiff does not allege he requested an extension of time, and does not allege any facts that 

would support the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. There also are no exhibits attached to 

the Second Amended Complaint indicating Plaintiff sought an extension of time to initate the court 

action. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it does not appear the request for judicial review is timely 

under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

V. Leave to Amend the Complaint

If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted 

to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed 

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff 

can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that would 

entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citation omitted).

Here the Court cannot find with certainty that Plaintiff cannot allege facts supporting a 

determination that the request for review is timely and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The 

Court will grant one opportunity to Plaintiff to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of 

identified by stating whether he requested an extension of time from the Appeals Council or, in the 

alternative, to allege facts that support the tolling of the statute of limitations. Failure to cure the 

deficiencies will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed. The amended complaint 

must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint.” 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff SHALL file an Third Amended Complaint within 30 days from the date of 

service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements 

of the pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local 

Rules of Practice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01376-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/17/20 Page 5 of 5