ORDER STRIKING THE RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER (DOC. 12) AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

John Kaminski seeks judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration denying his application for benefits. Previously, the Court found the information alleged was insufficient to determine the request for judicial review was timely, because the complaint was filed beyond the time required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and there were no facts alleged that the Appeals Council granted an extension of time. (See Doc. 10 at 4) Therefore, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

In response, rather than filing an amended complaint as ordered, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion for Equitable Tolling/Leave to Refile without Prejudice." (Doc. 12) Plaintiff alleges facts in support of an argument that equitable tolling should be applied in this action. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests leave "to refile once the Appeals Council has issued the extension formally." (Id. at 3)

Significantly, there is no active pleading before the Court. Plaintiff fails to argue the Second Amended Complaint should be revived for any reason, and the purported motion does not include facts sufficient for the Court to determined Plaintiff has a cognizable claim such that it could be construed as an amended pleading. Further, though Plaintiff alleges he "was able to complete the process" with the Appeals Council, it is unclear what "the process" was that he completed, or whether the Appeals Council granted his request for extension of time to file a complaint for judicial review. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

IT IS SO ORDERED.