Huggins v. Social Security Administration

Filing 5

ORDER instructing the plaintiff to file an amended Complaint within 21 days from the date this order is served. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/14/17. (jrb) Modified on 6/14/2017 (jrb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
DAVID LEE HUGGINS,

)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
1

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

CV417-054

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Proceeding pro se, David Lee Huggins has timely filed a
Complaint asking the Court to review the final denial of his social
security disability claim. Doc. 1. The Court now preliminarily screens
plaintiffs’ complaint. 2

1

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and has
been substituted for Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this
suit pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

District courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss frivolous lawsuits,
even those where the plaintiff pays the required filing fee. See Cuyler v. Aurora Loan
Services, LLC, 2012 WL 10488184 at * 2 (11th Cir. 2012) (notwithstanding filing fee
payment, “a district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a patently frivolous
complaint”); Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto Rico, Inc., 695 F.2d
524, 526 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting that courts may sua sponte dismiss actions for
lacking merit “if the proper procedural steps are taken and if the determination is
correct on the merits”); Wilkerson v. Georgia, 2014 WL 3644179 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. July
21, 2014) (dismissing pro se complaint on frivolity grounds even though plaintiff paid
full filing fee), rev’d on other grounds 618 F. App’x 610 (11th Cir. 2015).

Huggins doesn’t provide the Court with much. He complains that
benefits were denied, but he doesn’t offer the Court even a hint about
his diagnoses, how they affect his ability to work, or why the ALJ
concluded he was not disabled. See doc. 1. The Court needs more.
Given his pro se status, and in view of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)’s admonition
to give leave freely “when justice so requires,” the Court will give
plaintiff another shot:
In his Amended Complaint, plaintiff must sufficiently allege facts
demonstrating that he is entitled to relief. 3 If Plaintiff fails to file an
Amended Complaint within 21 days from the date this Order is served,
or fails to cure the deficiencies identified above, the Court will
recommend that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this

3

14th

day of June, 2017.

To demonstrate entitlement to relief, plaintiff must set forth: (1) a short, plain
description of his alleged physical or emotional impairments, when he contends they
became disabling, and how the impairments prevent him from working; (2) a
summary of all the administrative proceedings before the Social Security
Administration; and (3) a short, separate statement of each of his legal claims
explaining why the evidence does not support the Social Security Administration’s
findings and denial of benefits.
2