Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01229/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01229-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Maria Dejesus Ramirez
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

Maria DeJesus Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in forma pauperis with an action for

judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. The Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 3.) On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First

Amended Complaint (Doc. 4), which is now before the Court for screening. 

I. Screening Requirement

When a plaintiff proceeds 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 action 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). The Court must screen the First Amended 

Complaint because an amended complaint 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). 

MARIA DEJESUS RAMIREZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01229- JLT 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE 

SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY NEW

CASE DOCUMENTS

ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES 

MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF THE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 4)

Case 1:14-cv-01229-JLT Document 5 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 4
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. 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 a defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds 

upon which the action stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme 

Court noted: “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, 677 (2009) (internal quotation marks,

citations omitted). Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of 

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 

assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; 

conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. Leave to amend a 

complaint should be granted where deficiencies can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

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

III. Discussion and Analysis

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

benefits. (Doc. 4.) The Court may 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. 

Case 1:14-cv-01229-JLT Document 5 Filed 09/18/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Id. (emphasis added). Except as provided, “[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). These regulations 

“operate as a statute of limitations setting the time period in which a claimant may appeal a final 

decision of the Commissioner.” Cogburn v. Astrue, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152351, at * 5 (E.D. Cal. 

Oct. 29, 2010) (citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Vernon v. Heckler, 811 

F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir.1987)). The time limit is a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity, 

and it must be strictly construed. Id.

The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the decision rendered by an

administrative law judge on May 22, 2014, at which time the decision became the final decision of the 

Commissioner. (Doc. 4-2 at 2.) Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council grant an extension of time to 

file a civil action, which was granted by the Appeals Council on September 3, 2014. (Id.) The 

Appeals Council informed Plaintiff that she may initiate a civil action within thirty days from the date 

of service, or no later than October 3, 2014. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for judicial review of the 

decision is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over her complaint.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint states a cognizable claim for judicial review of the 

decision denying the request for Social Security benefits. 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Carolyn 

Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with Social Security Case 

Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the Consent 

Form, and USM-285 Forms;

3. Plaintiff SHALL complete and submit to the Court the “Notice of Submission of 

Documents in Social Security Appeal Form;” and

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01229-JLT Document 5 Filed 09/18/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4. The U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and 

the exhibits attached thereto (Doc. 4), summons, and this Order upon the defendant as 

directed by Plaintiff in the USM Forms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01229-JLT Document 5 Filed 09/18/14 Page 4 of 4