Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00228-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jeanette Sepeda
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

Jeanette Sepeda (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action seeking judicial 

review of a determination of the Social Security Administration denying her application for benefits. 

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

(Docs. 2 and 4) filed by Plaintiff.

I. Proceeding in forma pauperis

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

has reviewed the amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis and has determined Plaintiff satisfies 

the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis

JEANETTE SEPEDA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00228 - JLT 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 2, 4)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 1:14-cv-00228-JLT Document 5 Filed 03/12/14 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

are GRANTED.

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00228-JLT Document 5 Filed 03/12/14 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

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; 

conclusions in the pleading 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). 

These regulations “operate as a statute of limitations setting the time period in which a claimant may 

appeal a final decision of the Commissioner.” Berrigan v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115390, at 

*4-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010) (citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews 

v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). The time limit is a condition on the waiver of sovereign 

immunity, and it must be strictly construed. Id.

V. Discussion and Analysis

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

Case 1:14-cv-00228-JLT Document 5 Filed 03/12/14 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

rendered by the administrative law judge on November 17, 2013, at which time the decision became 

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

be filed no later than January 21, 2014, which includes the sixty days provided by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

and five days for notice. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.90, 416.1401 (a claimant is presumed to have received 

notice of a decision within five days after the notice was mailed). Plaintiff’s counsel requested the 

Appeals Council grant an extension of time to file a civil action January 22, 2014. (Doc. 1, Exh. 1). 

Plaintiff does not allege the Appeals Council responded to the belated extension of time. 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

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 finding

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 the necessary information regarding if 

and when the request for an extension of time was granted by the Appeals Council. Failure to cure the 

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

Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make her 

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in 

itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an 

amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. 

Case 1:14-cv-00228-JLT Document 5 Filed 03/12/14 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

The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled 

“First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will 

be considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 110 and will 

result in dismissal of this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2 and 4) are GRANTED;

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

3. Plaintiff is GRANTED 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: March 12, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00228-JLT Document 5 Filed 03/12/14 Page 5 of 5