(SS) Caglia v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY CAGLIA, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1376 JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE SECOND ) AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 13 v. ) AMEND 14 ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security , ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 17 Anthony Caglia seeks judicial review of the administrative decision denying an application for 18 Social Security benefits. Because it is unclear whether the request for judicial review is timely and the 19 Court has jurisdiction over this action, the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to 20 amend. 21 I. Screening Requirement 22 When an individual is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 23 complaint, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty 24 is untrue, or the action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may 25 be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 26 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). In addition, the Court may dismiss an action sua sponte if it lacks jurisdiction over 27 the matter. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983). 28 The Court must screen the Second Amended Complaint because the amended complaint 1 supersedes the previously filed complaint. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 2 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 II. Pleading Standards 4 General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 5 pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the 6 claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may 7 include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 8 A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and 9 succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The 10 purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds 11 upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The 12 Supreme Court noted, 13 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 14 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 15 factual enhancement. 16 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague 17 and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 18 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further, 19 [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 20 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 21 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 22 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.’ 23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 24 assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal 25 conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a 26 complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 27 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 1 III. Jurisdiction 2 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability 3 benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court would have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides 4 in relevant part: 5 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 6 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 7 action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district 8 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 9 affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 10 11 Id. (emphasis added). 12 Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be 13 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). The Supreme Court 14 noted the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility 15 claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Thus the regulations operate as a statute of 16 limitations a claimant to appeal a final decision of the Commissioner. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 17 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). Because the time limit is 18 “a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity,” it “must be strictly construed.” Id. 19 IV. Discussion and Analysis 20 Plaintiff fails to include any allegations regarding the pursuit of administrative remedies related 21 to the decision of the administrative law judge, or when the administrative law judge issued an opinion 22 on his application. (See Doc. 6 at 1-4) However, Plaintiff has attached several documents to the 23 Second Amended Complaint, which the Court has reviewed. 24 From the exhibits, it appears Plaintiff submitted a claim for benefits under Title II of the Social 25 Security Act in 2015. (See Doc. 6 at 5, 10) When the application was denied, Plaintiff filed a request 26 for a hearing. (Id. at 13) An administrative law judge held the hearing and issued a written decision 27 on June 19, 2018. (Id. at 13, 20) Plaintiff requested review of the decision by the Appeals Council, 28 which issued a notice denying the request on May 22, 2019. (Id. at 30) At that time, Plaintiff was 1 notified that he had “60 days to file a civil action (ask for court review),” and the date “July 21, 2019” 2 was handwritten by an unidentified individual on the first page of the notice. (Id.) Plaintiff also 3 received a second notice of the final decision on July 2, 2019, from Devin Nunes, Member of 4 Congress, who relayed correspondence from the Social Security Adminsitration stating: 5 "Thank you for your inquiry on Mr. Anthony Caglia disability claim. Mr. Caglia filed for SSDI. His initial application has been denied on 03/27/15 and again at the 6 Reconsideration, and the ALJ. He recently received an Appeal Council (AC) denial decision on 05/22/19. At this point his claim is closed. He can either file a federal 7 court case or a new claim." 8 (Id. at 34) 9 Because the decision to deny benefits became the final decision of the Commissioner on May 10 22, 2019, Plaintiff’s request for review would be due within sixty-five days of the date of Appeal’s 11 Council’s notice, or no later than July 26, 2019. Seee 42 U.S.C. §405(g) (noting that a claimant is 12 “presumed” to have received the notice of denial within “5 days after the date of such notice”). 13 However, Plaintiff did not initiate this action until October 1, 2019. Thus, it appears the statute of 14 limitations may have run on the request for review. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 15 2000) (affirming judgment in favor of Commissioner where the claimant missed the statute of 16 limitations by one day). 17 On the other hand, there are two exceptions to the statute of limitations: (1) the Commissioner 18 may grant an extension of time to file a civil action, and (2) the statute of limitations may be tolled 19 through the doctrine of “equitable tolling.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 479-80; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Here, 20 however, Plaintiff does not allege he requested an extension of time, and does not allege any facts that 21 would support the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. There also are no exhibits attached to 22 the Second Amended Complaint indicating Plaintiff sought an extension of time to initate the court 23 action. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it does not appear the request for judicial review is timely 24 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 25 V. Leave to Amend the Complaint 26 If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted 27 to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 28 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed 1 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff 2 can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that would 3 entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citation omitted). 4 Here the Court cannot find with certainty that Plaintiff cannot allege facts supporting a 5 determination that the request for review is timely and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The 6 Court will grant one opportunity to Plaintiff to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of 7 identified by stating whether he requested an extension of time from the Appeals Council or, in the 8 alternative, to allege facts that support the tolling of the statute of limitations. Failure to cure the 9 deficiencies will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed. The amended complaint 10 must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint.” 11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and 13 2. Plaintiff SHALL file an Third Amended Complaint within 30 days from the date of 14 service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements 15 of the pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local 16 Rules of Practice. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28