ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CASE DOCUMENTS

ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 4)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Mercedez Sanchez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. Previously, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 3) On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 4), which is now before the Court for screening.

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 complaints. 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-pled, 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.

III. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiff seeks review of a decision denying disability benefits. (Doc. 4) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in relevant part:

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)). The time limit is a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity, and it must be strictly construed. Id.

Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council denied a request for review of the decision rendered by an administrative law judge on March 7, 2017, at which time the decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 4 at 3) Therefore, Plaintiff's request for review would be due 65 days of the date of Appeal's Council's notice, or no later than May 11, 2017. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g) (noting a claimant is "presumed" to have received the notice of denial within "5 days after the date of such notice"). Because Plaintiff initiated this action May 2, 2017, the request for judicial review is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint states a cognizable claim for judicial review of the decision denying the request for Social Security benefits.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS

The court has issued an order granting your application to proceed without prepayment of fees and directing that service of process be made by the United States Marshal. You must provide the clerk's office with the following:

The original Summons and one copy of the service order is for the U.S. Marshal Service. The original Summons will be filed with the court following the service of a copy of the Summons and Complaint on the defendant(s). One set of documents (Summons, Complaint, Service Order and any additional documents) will be served on the U.S. Attorney, one set will be served on the Commissioner of Social Security, two sets will be served on the U.S. Attorney General, and one set will be retained by the U.S. Marshal Service. Please include an additional set of documents and a USM-285 form for any additional Federal employee or agency who is named as a defendant in your action.