Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01011/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01011-3/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 is proceeding in forma pauperis with an action for judicial 

review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. Previously the Court determined that 

it appeared the statute of limitations may have run on the request for review, and dismissed the 

complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 7) On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended 

complaint. (Doc. 8) As discussed below, the Court finds service of the amended complaint is 

appropriate. In ordering service of the first amended complaint the Court does not resolve whether the 

complaint is timely but preserves the issue for the parties to address in their briefs.

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 

KENDRA YEANTH HERNANDEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE 

SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CASE 

DOCUMENTS

ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES 

MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF THE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/10/15 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

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). 

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 pleaded, 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/10/15 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

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, “[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)). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Appeals Council denied her request for review on April 21, 2015, 

at which time the decision of the administrative law judge became the decision of the Commissioner. 

(Doc. 8 at 2) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for review would be due within 65 days of the date of 

Appeal’s Council’s notice, or no later than June 5, 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).

Plaintiff reports, “The original complaint was filed on July 5, 2015 on the basis of an 

inadvertent and erroneous calculation of statutory deadlines based on the ‘received’ stamp date of April 

29, 2015.” (Doc. 8 at 3, emphasis in original) However, it is unclear who “received” the notice from 

the Appeals Council, who stamped the document or when it was stamped in relation to when it was 

actually received. Without further information, the Court is unable to determine that Plaintiff has 

rebutted the statutory presumption that she received the Appeals Council’s notice within five days of its 

mailing. If Plaintiff successfully rebuts the presumption, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to 

establish that Plaintiff received actual notice within the 65 days. Orozco v. Astrue, 2012 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 137733 at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012) (citing Matsibekker v. Heckler, 738 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 

1984)

///

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/10/15 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

IV. Conclusion and Order

Given the lack of clarity regarding when Plaintiff received the Appeals Council’s notice and 

whether the statute of limitations bars her request for judicial review, the Court finds service of the 

first amended complaint is appropriate for the Commissioner to have an opportunity to respond to the 

allegations presented. 

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

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

(Doc. 8), summons, and this order upon the defendant as directed in the USM Forms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01011-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 4