Huggins v. Social Security Administration
ORDER re 6 Amended Complaint filed by David Lee Huggins. If plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint within 21 days from the date this Order is served, or fails to cure the deficiencies identified, the Court will recommend that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (Compliance due by 7/20/2017.) Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/28/17. (jlm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DAVID LEE HUGGINS,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
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 preliminarily screened his
complaint and ordered Huggins to provide it with more information
about “his diagnoses, how they affect his ability to work, or why the
ALJ concluded he was not disabled.” See doc. 5 at 2. In response,
Huggins sent the Court a one-page “Amended Complaint” explaining
that his rheumatoid arthritis, in combination with lasting effects from a
2006 car accident, renders him unable to work. Doc. 6. This is good -but the Court still 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 allow plaintiff another crack.
In his Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff must set forth:
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;1
a summary of all the administrative proceedings before the
Social Security Administration; and
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
See doc. 9. If plaintiff fails to file a Second 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.
Plaintiff can flesh out what he said in his Amended Complaint: why his
rheumatoid arthritis prevents him from doing his past work or any other full-time
work and what medical evidence he provided to the Social Security Administration
to prove his arthritis keeps him from working.
Meaning, the Court needs to know specifically what the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) failed to consider -- how did the ALJ err in finding plaintiff not disabled? Be
SO ORDERED, this
day of June, 2017.
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?