Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00042-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Darren Hugh Greer
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 Darren Hugh Greer is proceeding in forma pauperis with an action for judicial review 

of the decision to deny his application for Social Security benefits. On February 3, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 5) Because the facts alleged are insufficient for the Court 

to determine whether this action was timely filed, the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with 

leave to amend. 

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. 

DARREN HUGH GREER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00042 - JLT 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 1:16-cv-00042-JLT Document 6 Filed 02/08/16 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

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 1:16-cv-00042-JLT Document 6 Filed 02/08/16 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

III. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiff requests that the Court “review a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration denying Plaintiff’s applications for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income payments.” (Doc. 5 at 1) The Court may 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.

Here, Plaintiff alleges the administrative law judge issued a decision on January 15, 2014, and 

the Appeals Council denied his request for review of the decision on March 19, 2015. (Doc. 5 at 2) 

Plaintiff alleges he requested an extension of time to file an action, which was granted by the Appeals 

Council on December 10, 2015. (Id.) However, Plaintiff fails to allege the duration of the extension, 

or the number of days he had to file the action. Without such information, the Court is unable to 

determine whether the action is timely, or whether the Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IV. 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). Here, Plaintiff 

Case 1:16-cv-00042-JLT Document 6 Filed 02/08/16 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

may be able to 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 factual deficiencies of this complaint 

by stating the necessary information, including the duration of the extension granted by the Appeals 

Council. 

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

“Second Amended Complaint.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED 21 days from the date of service of this order to file a Second 

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: February 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00042-JLT Document 6 Filed 02/08/16 Page 4 of 4