Whitfield v. Social Security Administration

Filing 3

ORDER directing Whitfield to file, on or before July 15, 2016, an Amended Complaint that answers all of the questions on the preprinted form. To assist Whitfield in fully completing the preprinted form, the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide h er with a copy of the incomplete pro se complaint that she filed with this Court on June 13, 2016, 2 . The Court will hold in abeyance Whitfield's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 1 , until she files her Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 6/16/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
LINDA FAYE WHITFIELD
on behalf of
WILLIAM LAMAR WEAVER
V.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 3:16CV00151-DPM-JTR

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

ORDER
On June 13, 2016, Linda Faye Whitfield, on behalf of William Lamar Weaver,
filed a pro se civil complaint against the Social Security Administration, along with
a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Docs. 1 & 2.
Whitfield submitted her claims on a preprinted form entitled “Complaint for
Review of a Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income Decision.”
However, she did not answer all of the questions on the form. For example, she did
not: (1) state the date she received notice of the Commissioner’s final decision
(Section II); or (2) give any reasons why she believes the Commissioner’s decision
should be overturned (Section III). In addition, she did not attach a copy of the
Commissioner’s final decision or the notice that her appeal had been denied by the
1

Appeals Council, as directed by Section II of the form.
Thus, Whitfield’s pro se Complaint does not set forth sufficient facts for the
Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over her case. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(individual can obtain judicial review of a “final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party”); Anderson v. Sullivan,
959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “the Social Security Act precludes
general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative remedies have been
exhausted” and explaining that claimants may seek judicial review only of “final
decisions” from the Commissioner).
Accordingly, Whitfield is ordered to file, on or before July 15, 2016, an
Amended Complaint that answers all of the questions on the preprinted form.1 To
assist Whitfield in fully completing the preprinted form, the Clerk of the Court is
directed to provide her with a copy of the incomplete pro se Complaint that she filed
with this Court on June 13, 2016 (Doc. 2).

1

Whitfield is hereby notified of her responsibility to comply with Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the
Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of
Arkansas, which provides: "It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly
notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. A party
appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and
telephone number. If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro
se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

2

The Court will hold in abeyance Whitfield’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis, Doc. 1, until she files her Amended Complaint.
DATED this 16th day of June, 2016.

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3