Screeton v. Social Security Administration

Filing 13

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted; and 2 Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Objections due within 14 days of the date of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore on 2/7/2024. (kdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
RALPH SCREETON, IV
V.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:23-CV-00009-LPR-BBM

MARTIN O’MALLEY1, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to
United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to all or part
of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court
within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file objections,
Judge Rudofsky may adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all the
evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
fact.
I.

INTRODUCTION
On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff Ralph Screeton, IV, (“Screeton”) filed a pro se

Complaint, seeking review of a social security disability or supplemental security income
decision. (Doc. 2). The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

1

On December 20, 2023, Martin J. O’Malley was sworn in as Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Commissioner O’Malley is
automatically substituted as the Defendant.

(“Commissioner”) filed a motion to dismiss Screeton’s Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, alleging Screeton failed to exhaust available administrative remedies
as required by law. (Docs. 5–6). In response, Screeton filed an amicus brief on September
5, 2023 (Doc. 11). For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the
Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and that Screeton’s Complaint be
dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Screeton’s
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
II.

BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2022, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) sent notice to

Screeton that it overpaid him for Social Security benefits in the amount of $13,818.30.
(Doc. 6-1 at 2). The SSA informed Screeton that the overpayment needed to be paid back
within 30 days and advised Screeton of his right to appeal. Id. at 2, 4. Screeton then
submitted a request for reconsideration to the SSA. (Doc. 6-2). In response, on September
17, 2022, the SSA sent notice to Screeton that it had reconsidered his account and found
its initial findings to be correct. (Doc. 6-3). The notice informed Screeton of his right to
request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) if he disagreed with the
SSA’s determination. Id. at 3.
Without requesting a hearing, Screeton faxed an email on November 15, 2022, to
the SSA, stating, “I have filed a grievance with the federal courts and the attorney general.”
(Doc. 6-4 at 1). On December 20, 2022, Screeton completed a Request for Waiver of
Overpayment Recovery or Change in Repayment Rate (Doc. 6-5), and, on January 3, 2023,
the SSA agreed to continue to pay Screeton’s benefits until it could respond to his request
2

(Doc. 6-6). Notwithstanding, on January 5, 2023, Screeton, proceeding pro se, filed the
instant civil action. (Doc. 2).
III.

DISCUSSION
“Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by
a civil action . . . in the district court of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)–(h)
(emphasis added). In other words, while federal courts have jurisdiction to review final
decisions of the Commissioner, they lack any subject manner jurisdiction until
“administrative remedies have been exhausted.” Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692
(8th Cir. 1992). “Exhaustion is generally required as a matter of preventing premature
interference with agency processes, so that the agency may function efficiently and so that
it may have an opportunity to correct its own errors, to afford the parties and the courts the
benefit of its experiences and expertise, and to compile a record which is adequate for
judicial review.” Id. at 693 (citations omitted).
In order to exhaust his administrative remedies, Screeton needed to complete a
three-step process. Screeton completed the first step when he appropriately requested
reconsideration of the Commissioner’s initial decision requiring the return of the alleged
overpayment of benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1407. In the second step, Screeton should have
requested an administrative hearing after the Commissioner denied his request for
reconsideration. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429. Finally, the third step required Screeton
to request that the appeals council review the hearing decision. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1467. Only
after completion of these three steps is the administrative review process exhausted. See 20
3

C.F.R. § 416.1481. Failure to complete the preceding steps renders the administrative
determination binding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.905.
Screeton failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he skipped steps two
and three and filed this lawsuit instead of requesting an administrative hearing. There is no
question from the record that Screeton knew he was entitled to an administrative hearing.
In fact, Screeton attached correspondence to his amicus brief from the SSA, which
explicitly states, “[i]f you disagree with this determination, you have the right, within 60
days . . . to request that the determination be reviewed by an administrative law judge. . . .
If you request a hearing, please submit any additional information you have.” (See e.g.
Doc. 11 at 52). Because Screeton failed to complete steps two and three of the
administrative-review process, his claim is unexhausted.
The Court notes there are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement under certain
circumstances. Specifically, exhaustion is not required where a plaintiff raises a colorable
constitutional claim collateral to his substantive claim of entitlement, shows irreparable
harm would result from exhaustion, or shows that the purposes of exhaustion would not be
served by requiring further administrative action. Thorbus v. Bowen 848 F.2d 901, 903 (8th
Cir. 1988) (citing Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 329-31 (1976)).
Plaintiff argues in his amicus brief that the current process is detrimental “to
[Plaintiff’s] health, wellbeing, and are limiting his ability to access the same rights that
every person in this nation are [sic] afforded” due to the collection of the overpayment and
the lack of paid insurance premiums. (Doc. 11 at 1-2). The SSA, however, stopped
collecting on the overpayment and reinstated full benefits to Screeton on January 3, 2023,
4

while the appeal process continued. (Doc. 6-6). Essentially, when Screeton filed this
lawsuit, he was in the same position he was prior to the SSA’s overpayment finding.
Therefore, Screeton has not shown that an exception to the exhaustion requirement is
warranted in this case.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by law.

Consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
should be granted; and Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) be GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 2) be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack

for subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED this 7th day of February, 2024.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5