Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Carl J. Nichols on 7/27/2022. (zmh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EARLESHIA DAVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,) ) Defendant. ) Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-03255 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff initiated this matter on December 13, 2021, by filing a pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. On January 8, 2022, the court reviewed the Complaint and issued an order (“Ord.”), ECF No. 3, directing plaintiff to, within 20 days, file an amended complaint that (1) substituted her residence address in compliance with D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1), and (2) identified a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,” Ord. at 1 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Plaintiff was forewarned that failure to timely comply with the order would result in dismissal of this matter without prejudice. Ord. at 2. Plaintiff has now, more than four months beyond the given deadline, filed an amended Complaint. See ECF No. 4. Notwithstanding its untimeliness, the amended Complaint itself is insufficient. Though it lists plaintiff’s residence address, see id. at caption, it fails to identify an agency decision, or otherwise allege sufficient facts from which the Commissioner may reasonably identify the decision being challenged, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In fact, despite the opportunity and extended time afforded to plaintiff, the amended Complaint actually contains even less information regarding plaintiff’s claim than the already-deficient initial Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Fed. R Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Com’n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that a sua sponte dismissal is appropriate for failure to state a claim). Moreover, without this information, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiff has properly exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Ford v. Astrue, 808 F. Supp. 2d 150, 153 (D.D.C. 2011) (“When it comes to judicial review of SSA decisions, exhaustion is a jurisdictional requirement.”). As such, plaintiff’s IFP application is granted, and the amended Complaint, and this matter, are dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: July 27, 2022 /s/ ________________________ CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?