DAVIS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Filing 5

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

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