Campbell v. Berryhill

Filing 7

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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
GERALD CARMICHAEL
CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)

CV417-094

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Proceeding pro se, Gerald Campbell 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.1
Campbell doesn’t provide the Court with much.

1

He complains

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).

that the denial of benefits was driven not by his ability to work but in
“retaliation” for “the judgment [he] won against the Ga. Dept. of Labor,
which

is

directly

connected

to

the

Social

Security

Disability

Adjudication.” Doc. 1 at 3 & doc. 3 at 1. He explains that he has been
diagnosed with prostate cancer and hepatitis C, among other things,
and so was entitled to a disability finding. Doc. 3 at 1. The Court,
however, needs more than a single sentence identifying Campbell’s
diagnoses and several pages regarding a conspiracy to deny him
benefits and complaints about his disability counsel. 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.2 If Plaintiff fails to file an
Amended Complaint within 21 days from the date this Order is served,

2

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

or fails to cure the deficiencies identified above, the Court will
recommend that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this

14th

day of June, 2017.

3