Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01715-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Elisa Lujano
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 Elisa Lujano (Plaintiff) appeals from the final decision of the Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ) denying her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income benefits.1The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based upon Plaintiff's failure to file a timely appeal of

the ALJ's final decision. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. For the reasons discussed 

below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On December 23, 2011, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision 

denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act).

 

1

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 9, 10). For that reason, the 

action was reassigned to the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; 

see also L.R. 301, 305. (Doc. 44).

ELISA LUJANO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-1715-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT

Case 1:13-cv-01715-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Declaration of Robert Weigel (Decl.), ¶ (3)(a), Exhibit (Exh.) 1, Doc. 11-1. Plaintiff requested review 

of the decision by the Appeals Council. Id. On July 9, 2013, the Appeals Council mailed a notice to 

Plaintiff, with a copy to Plaintiff’s attorney, denying her request for review of the ALJ’s decision, thus 

making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Decl., ¶ 3(a), Exh. 2. The notice from 

the Appeals Council informed Plaintiff that if she wished to commence a civil action, she must do so 

within sixty days of the letter’s receipt, which was assumed to be five days after the date of the denial 

of the request for review. Id. Accordingly Plaintiff’s deadline for filing a timely civil action in this 

Court was September 12, 2013. On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file 

her civil action. Decl., ¶ 3(a), Exh. 3. Plaintiff did not receive a response before the deadline expired 

and on September 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed her complaint, fifteen days after the deadline to commence 

a civil action. Decl., ¶ 3(b). In a letter dated March 6, 2014, the Appeals Council sent Plaintiff and her 

attorney notice of the denial of the extension of time. Decl., ¶ 3(a), Exh. 3. The Court now considers 

Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s untimely filing of the Complaint. (Doc. 

11). 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint on 

the grounds that it “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To state a claim for which 

relief may be granted, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). 

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts may consider not only the 

allegations of a complaint, but also the exhibits attached thereto and any concessions made by the 

plaintiff. See Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Cooper v. 

Bell, 628 F.2d 1208, 1210 n. 2 (9th Cir.1980)) (“When a plaintiff has attached various exhibits to the 

complaint, those exhibits may be considered in determining whether dismissal pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) was proper without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.”).

Here, the Commissioner contends that dismissal is required because Plaintiff failed to file her

Complaint within the 60-day statute of limitations provided by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Although the 

statute-of-limitations defense is usually raised in an answer to a complaint, “it may be raised in a 

Case 1:13-cv-01715-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 6
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

motion to dismiss when the running of the statute is apparent from the face of the complaint.” See 

Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Conerly v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 

623 F.2d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1980)). “Such a motion to dismiss should be granted only if the assertions 

of the complaint, read with required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute 

was tolled.” Id. (quoting Conerly, 623 F.2d at 119).

DISCUSSION

1. Untimely Complaint

In the Motion, Defendant contends that the case should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s 

Complaint was untimely filed. (Doc. 11 at 2). 

Judicial review of the Commissioner's administrative 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).

Sections 405(g) and (h) therefore operate to constitute a 60-day statute of limitations in which 

the claimant may appeal a final decision from 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). “The limitations to final decisions and to a sixty-day filing period serve to compress the time for 

Case 1:13-cv-01715-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/09/15 Page 3 of 6
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

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, the Appeals Council mailed a notice to Plaintiff on July 9, 2013, with a copy to 

Plaintiff’s attorney, denying her request for review of the ALJ’s decision, thus making the ALJ’s 

decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Decl., ¶ 3(a), Exh. 2. The notice from the Appeals Council 

informed Plaintiff that if she wished to commence a civil action, she must do so within sixty days of 

the letter’s receipt; receipt of the letter was assumed to be five days from the date of the letter, or July 

14, 2013. Id. The sixty-day deadline for Plaintiff to file her Complaint was September 12, 2013. 

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 27, 2013, fifteen days after the statute of limitations had 

expired. A complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) may be dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion 

if it appears beyond doubt from the face of the complaint “that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts 

that would establish the timeliness of the claim.” Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 

1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995)). As it is apparent from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that she did not 

properly file within the prescribed statutory period, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as time 

barred. 

2. Equitable Tolling

Defendant further argues that there are no circumstances in this case that justify equitable 

tolling of the statute of limitations period. (Doc. 11 at 4). The principle of equitable tolling allows 

for the statute of limitations to be extended in certain circumstances because the social security 

regulations were “designed to be ‘unusually protective’ of claimants.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 480. The 

Supreme Court in Bowen noted, Social Security Administration regulations governing extensions of 

time for filing are based on considerations of fairness to claimants. Id. Thus, the Secretary may grant 

an extension where a suit was not timely filed because of illness, accident, destruction of records, or 

Case 1:13-cv-01715-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/09/15 Page 4 of 6
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

mistake. Id. Similarly, an extension may be granted where the claimant misunderstands the appeal 

process or is unable to timely collect necessary information, or where the Secretary undertook action 

that “misled” the claimant concerning his right to review. Id. at 480, n.12, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.911,416.1411.

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 

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

Bowen, 476 U.S. at 479-82. 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and thus has provided no 

argument that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint is 

devoid of factual allegations indicating circumstances for which the statute of limitations should be 

tolled in equity. Therefore, the sixty-day time restriction set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) bars review of 

the administrative decision denying the claim for Social Security benefits, and no special 

circumstances exist that warrants this Court to toll the limitation period. See e.g., Ray v. Colvin, 2014 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177105 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014) (granting motion to dismiss despite Plaintiff’s 

unanswered request for a thirty-day extension of the filing deadline); see also Middleton v. Astrue, 

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59174, 2010 WL 2219662, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (granting motion to dismiss 

with leave to amend after plaintiff filed complaint eleven days late but did not request an extension of 

time).

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01715-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/09/15 Page 5 of 6
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Judgment 

shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01715-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/09/15 Page 6 of 6