Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00374/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Edward Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWARD SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-00374-AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that 

plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to 

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

SCREENING STANDARD 

Granting IFP status does end the court’s inquiry. The federal IFP statute requires federal 

courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” 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. § 1915(e)(2). 

Plaintiffs must assist the court in making this determination by drafting their complaint so 

that it contains a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 

Case 2:16-cv-00374-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), as well as a short and plain 

statement showing that plaintiffs are entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiffs, and in 

what way). Plaintiffs’ claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. See “Rule 8” of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practiceprocedure/federalrules-civil-procedure. 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiffs’ favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at 

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). 

However, the court need not accept the truth of legal conclusions that are phrased as 

factual allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice. See 

Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Sprewell v. Golden State 

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 (2001). 

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may 

only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 

2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff’s complaint, which was filed on February 22, 2016, against the Commissioner of 

Social Security (“the Commissioner”), contains a list of his medical problems along with the 

statement “they did not receive my medical records.” ECF No. 1. Such a complaint does not 

Case 2:16-cv-00374-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

contain a short and plain statement in accordance with Rule 8(a). Although the Federal Rules 

adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the 

claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 

1984). In addition, a complaint must explain the grounds of the court’s jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint neither explains what its basis is or why the court has 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 

Although it is not clear, it seems to the undersigned that plaintiff may be attempting to 

appeal the denial of his social security benefits. The undersigned bases this conclusion on the fact 

that plaintiff’s complaint has been filed against the Commissioner, and his allegation that “they” 

did not receive his medical records. See ECF No. 1. “The exclusive method for obtaining 

judicial review of a final decision of the [Social Security Administration] is set forth in [42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g)].” Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88 (9th Cir. 1971). This statute provides: 

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. 

§ 405(g). The aforementioned section operates as a statute of limitations setting the time period 

in which a claimant may appeal a final decision of the Commissioner. Bowen v. City of New 

York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986). Because the appeal provision set forth in § 405(g) constitutes a 

waiver of sovereign immunity, courts must strictly construe the applicable time limit. Id.; see 

also Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment in favor 

of the Commissioner for untimely filing of one day). Accordingly, a complaint appealing the 

Commissioner’s denial of an application for social security benefits must allege the dates of the 

plaintiff’s application(s) and the related denial(s). Cribbet v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV01142-BAM, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155574, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (M.J. 

McAuliffe); Cook v. Astrue, No. 1:12-CV-00347-GSA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31999, at *5–7 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2012) (M.J. Austin); Sanchez v. Astrue, No. 1:11-CV-00607 GSA, 2011 WL 

1549307, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2011) (M.J. Austin). The plaintiff must also allege that he 

Case 2:16-cv-00374-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 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

or she appealed to the Appeals Council, setting forth the application date, the decision date, and 

the outcome. Id. 

If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint challenging the denial of social security 

benefits, he is advised that the foregoing facts will need to be alleged. Any amended complaint 

must (1) establish its timeliness, and (2) allege facts sufficient to show plaintiff is entitled to 

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As the court has explained, to establish his complaint’s timeliness 

plaintiff must allege that he appealed the Commissioner’s denial of his application for benefits 

and when his appeal was denied. Plaintiff must also allege why it is the Commissioner’s decision 

was incorrect, in terms that are both simple and concise. In addition, plaintiff is cautioned that an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 

1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Local Rule 220. 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED; 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED; and 

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 

Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 

and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of 

the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: April 7, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00374-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 4