ORDER

(Am. Compl. — ECF No. 5)

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter involves Plaintiff Deloris A. Gibson's appeal and request for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin's final decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33, §§ 1381-83. Plaintiff has submitted an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) in accordance with the court's Screening Order (ECF No. 3) dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend. The Amended Complaint is referred to the undersigned for re-screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-4 of the Local Rules of Practice.

I. RE-SCREENING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

After granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a federal court must additionally screen the complaint and any amended complaints filed prior to a responsive pleading. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) "applies to all in forma pauperis complaints"). The simplified pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions. Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). For purposes of § 1915's screening requirement, a properly pled complaint must therefore provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands "more than labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). A complaint "must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

Federal courts are given the authority 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). The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915 is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. North Star Intern. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir. 1983). In considering whether a plaintiff states a valid claim, the court accepts as true all material allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980).

Here, Ms. Gibson's Amended Complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying her disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Act. See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 5). To state a valid benefits claim, a complaint must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. To do so, a complaint should state when and how a plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies with the SSA and the nature of her disability, including when she claims she became disabled. The complaint should also contain a short and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the SSA's determination and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See, e.g., Sabbia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 669 F.Supp.2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (when submitting a complaint for judicial review to the district court, social security appellants "must not treat the matter as a simple formality" by filing "extremely perfunctory" allegations), aff'd sub nom. Sabbia v. Astrue, 433 F. App'x 462 (7th Cir. 2011). Although this showing need not be made in great detail, it must be presented in sufficient detail for the court to understand the disputed issues so that it can meaningfully screen the complaint. See 4 Soc. Sec. Law & Prac. § 56:4 (2016); 2 Soc. Sec. Disab. Claims Prac. & Proc. §§ 19:92-93 (2nd ed. 2015).

A. Grounds for Plaintiff's Appeal

The Amended Complaint seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying benefits and asks the Court to reverse that decision, or alternatively, to remand this matter for a new hearing. A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of a decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner's findings; and (b) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).

In the Screening Order (ECF No. 3), the court found that the original Complaint satisfied the administrative exhaustion and residency prerequisites for judicial review. Id. at 3. Ms. Gibson also alleged the nature of her disability and the date she became disabled. Id. at 4. However, the Complaint merely alleged that the decision to deny Gibson benefits was wrong but failed to indicate why the decision was wrong other than by reciting the general standards that govern the court's review of the SSA's decision. Id. The court therefore dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Id.

In her Amended Complaint, Ms. Gibson alleges "the errors of law and the lack of substantial evidence to support the final agency decision" was set forth in her counsel's May 18, 2015 correspondence to the Appeals Council (the "May 2015 Letter"). See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 5) ¶ 7. Gibson attached the May 2015 Letter to the Amended Complaint as an addendum. See id., Exhibit B. Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings when it conducts its review of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). However, "a court may `consider certain materials—documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice'" when reviewing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Kizer v. PTP, Inc., 129 F.Supp.3d 1000, 1005 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003)). The May 2015 Letter states that the ALJ ignored and mischaracterized medical evidence to support the finding of a light residual functioning capacity with typical conditions. Am. Compl. Ex. B at 10. The letter further asserts that the ALJ did not reconcile the weight of medical opinions by engaging in "self-contradictory assessments of the medical opinion evidence." Id. Additionally, the letter contends that the ALJ erred at step two by failing to include her mental and right foot impairments as severe impairments. Id. at 12-13. The Amended Complaint, in conjunction with the May 2015 Letter, contains sufficient allegations to give the Defendant fair notice of Ms. Gibson's disagreement with the SSA's final determination. The court therefore finds that her Amended Complaint states a claim for initial screening purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: