Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00649-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Colmenero
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY COLMENERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00649- SMS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1) 

Plaintiff Ricky Colmenero, proceeding pro se, seeks review of a decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability insurance 

benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.). The court has reviewed 

the complaint and applicable law, and for the reason that follows, the complaint will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff is granted leave, however, to file an amended complaint to remedy the deficiency 

discussed below. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff challenges the denial of his application for disability insurance which he alleges 

was not supported by substantial evidence. His entire statement of claim reads as follows:

“I had filed a disability claim in 2012 and was denied in 2015. The bases [sic] of this decision was 

not substantial to the evidence provided. I have documentation of tumors, radiation treatment and 
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

chemo. Also doctor letters from both oncoligists [sic] with statements of fighting cancer.” Doc. 1, 

p. 5. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensation for time which he could not work “due to the effects of 

cancer and treatments.” Doc. 1, pg. 6. 

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)

Under Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must first set forth 

a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). 

Judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner is governed by Section 405(g) and (h) of the 

Social Security Act, which reads in relevant part:

(g) 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.

(h) The findings and decision of the Commissioner after a hearing shall 

be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No 

findings of facts or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency 

except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the 

Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof 

shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on 

any claim arising under this subchapter.

42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (emphasis added). Section 405(g) operates as a statute of limitations

setting the time period in which a claimant may appeal a final decision of the Commissioner—

namely sixty days. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 478 (1986) (“the 60-day requirement 

is not jurisdictional, but rather constitutes a period of limitations”); Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 

1274, 1277 (9th Cir.1987) (“The 60–day period is not jurisdictional, but instead constitutes a statute 

of limitations.”). And because the time limit under section 405(g) is a condition on the waiver of 

sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 479; see, e.g., Fletcher v. 

Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Commissioner for 

untimely filing of one day). 
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

A “final decision” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is reached only after a lengthy process whereby

a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies: 

[A] disappointed claimant is afforded a three-stage administrative 

review process beginning with de novo reconsideration by the State of 

the initial determination. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the state 

agency’s decision on reconsideration, he is entitled to a hearing by an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) within SSA’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. 

If the ALJ’s decision is adverse to the claimant, the claimant may then 

seek review by the Appeals Council. Proceeding through these three 

stages exhausts the claimant’s administrative remedies. Following the 

determination at each stage, a disappointed claimant is notified that he 

must proceed to the next stage within 60 days of notice of the action 

taken or the decision will be considered binding. 

Bowen, 476 U.S. at 471-472. And “[t]hereafter, he may seek judicial review in federal district 

court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Id. at 472. If a plaintiff does not correctly follow the 

procedure with respect to appealing the ALJ’s decision, the Court is unable to consider his

challenge. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000) (“If a claimant fails to request review from the 

[Appeals] Council, there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases”). 

In his complaint, Plaintiff does not explain how he has exhausted the Social Security 

process. While he states the application was filed in 2012 and denied in 2015, it is unknown 

whether Plaintiff went through the appeals process, which required proceeding through a number of 

stages before obtaining a final decision from the Appeals Council. Consequently, it is unknown 

when the Appeals Council’s decision became final. Without such information, the Court cannot 

determine whether Plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed, such that it may exercise judicial review. 

Plaintiff is thus advised that if he files an amended complaint, sufficient information must

be supplied so that the Court can determine whether it has jurisdiction of the action; otherwise, the 

action may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

C. Equitable Tolling

In rare cases, the sixty day statute of limitations can be excused. Section 405(g) has been 
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

construed to permit extensions of time only by the Commissioner pursuant to Title 20 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations sections 404.9111and 416.1411,2or by a court applying traditional equitable 

tolling principles in cases “where the equities in favor of tolling the limitations period are so great 

that deference to the agency’s judgment is inappropriate.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 480 (internal 

quotations omitted). For example, the Supreme Court concluded in Bowen that equitable tolling 

applied where the SSA’s internal policy prevented claimants from knowing that a violation of their 

rights had occurred. Id. at 481. And in Vernon v. Heckler, the Supreme Court reversed and 

remanded to give the claimant “the opportunity to delineate further a factual basis for estoppel or 

equitable tolling” based on facts that an SSA employee alleged said, “Don’t worry; they’ll give you 

an extension.” Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1275, 1278 (9th Cir. 1987). There are, of course, 

cases to the contrary. In Turner v. Bowen, for example, the Eighth Circuit found “no basis for 

tolling the statute of limitations because [the plaintiff] had not proved to be a person unusually 

disadvantaged in protecting his own interests” despite being illiterate and represented by a state 

representative (who was not an attorney) at the ALJ hearing. Turner v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 708, 709 

(8th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff is therefore also advised that if he did not file this complaint within the sixty day 

period after receiving an adverse decision from the Appeals Council, he would need to articulate 

facts similar to those outlined in the cases above in order to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. 

II. LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to address the issue

identified above. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must bear the docket number 

assigned in this case and be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” As a general rule, an amended 

 

1

Section 404.911 relate to the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act concerning old-age, 

survivors, and DIB. 

2

 Section 416.1411 relate to the provisions of Title XVI of the Social Security Act concerning 

supplemental security income (“SSI”) for the aged, blind and disabled. Plaintiff does not appear to

seek review of a denial of SSI by the Commissioner.
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

5

complaint supersedes any earlier complaints. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that there may be limited exceptions to this rule on appeal). The amended complaint 

must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff is instructed to consider the standards set forth in this Order and should only file 

an amended complaint if he believes his claims are cognizable. Any amended complaint shall be 

filed no later than July 8, 2016. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint by 

the date specified will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE