Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01011/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01011-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Kendra Yeanth Hernandez
Plaintiff

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

Plaintiff Kendra Yeanth Hernandez seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for 

judicial review of the administrative decision denying an application for Social Security benefits. 

Pending before the Court are the complaint (Doc. 1) and motions to proceed in forma pauperis filed by 

Plaintiff (Docs. 2, 6). For the following reasons, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is 

GRANTED, and the complaint DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

I. Proceeding in forma pauperis

The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and] 

that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court 

reviewed the applications and finds Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

///

KENDRA YEANTH HERNANDEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01011- JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 2, 6)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/18/15 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

II. Screening Requirement

When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 

complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious or 

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. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim 

is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or 

not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 

25, 32-33 (1992). 

III. 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/18/15 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

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).

IV. 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.

V. Discussion and Analysis

According to Plaintiff, the Appeals Council denied her request for review of the decision 

rendered by the administrative law judge on April 21, 2015, at which time the decision became the 

final decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶9) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for review would 

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/18/15 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

be due within sixty five days of the date of Appeal’s Council’s notice, or no later than June 25, 2015. 

See 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 July 

5, 2015. 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 that she requested an extension of time, and does not allege any 

facts that would support the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Therefore, from the face of 

Plaintiff’s complaint, it does not appear the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. 

VI. 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 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), citing Conley 

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 

651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 

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

determination that the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to 

amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of this complaint by stating whether she 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 “First Amended Complaint.” 

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/18/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2, 6) are GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

3. Plaintiff is GRANTED 14 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: August 18, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/18/15 Page 5 of 5