Fowler v. Social Security Administration

Filing 12

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL: for the failure of Fowler to comply with the directives contained in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 10), for the substantive reasons stated therein, and for the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, it is hereby Ordered that the above-captionedmatter is DISMISSED in its entirety.(PSSA, 1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11826-RGS
DAVID LIONEL FOWLER
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL
November 1, 2012
STEARNS, D.J.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2012, plaintiff David Lionel Fowler, (Fowler), currently residing at the
Massachusetts New England Center for Homeless Veterans in Boston, Massachusetts, filed a
skeletal self-prepared Complaint against the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Complaint
was virtually incoherent, but appeared to be a refiling of a dismissed case in the District of Arizona
(Phoenix Division) seeking social security benefits. See Fowler v. Social Security Administration,
et al., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00628-JAT.
On October 9, 2012, this court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 10) directing
Fowler to file an Amended Complaint curing the pleading deficiencies and complying with Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fowler also was directed to demonstrate good cause why
this action should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth therein. This court also declined to
appoint pro bono counsel for Fowler on the grounds that the merits of his claims were dubious,
particularly where it was unclear whether Fowler had exhausted his administrative remedies with
the Social Security Administration.
On October 29, 2012, Fowler filed a two-page Amended Complaint, along with random

exhibits (Docket No. 11).1 In the Amended Complaint, Fowler seeks reconsideration of the
Memorandum and Order, stating that “reasons medical and adoption has been falsely removed from
state electronic files to purposely refuse payout on federal criminal civil demand.” Am. Compl.
(Docket No. 10 at 1). He claims that the Social Security Office in Phoenix, Arizona “disregarded
a federal court order and committed a felony by not filing federal court order in social security
electronic file date of judgment and demand 03/23/2012 to felony cover up a criminal and civil
order.” Id. He references a social security case apparently dismissed by an administrative law
judge, and makes reference to false adoption information,2 but otherwise his Amended Complaint
is unintelligible.
DISCUSSION
Fowler’s Amended Complaint utterly fails to comport with the pleading requirements of
Rule 8, and therefore does not satisfy this court’s directives contained in the Memorandum and
Order (Docket No. 10). He does not specify the federal order allegedly violated, nor does he set
forth the date, the place, or any material underlying facts supporting his claim. He also does not

1

Fowler’s attached exhibits include an August, 2011 Notice of Hearing by the Social Security
Administration, the docket sheet in the Arizona case, two January, 2011 medical reports/records,
letter from Fowler dated February 28, 2012 seeking assistance from the Federal Public Defender in
Arizona, a June, 2009 and a July, 2009 letter to Fowler from the Selective Service System regarding
his registration, a copy of the State of Michigan Certificate of Live Birth, a May 13, 2010 letter from
the State of Michigan Department of Community Health regarding a discrepancy between
information on Fowler’s birth record and his application, a letter to the Berrien County Probate
Courthouse Adoption Office in Michigan regarding Fowler’s request for his adoption
documentation, and a July 15, 2010 letter from Fowler to the Social Security Office in Grand
Rapids, Michigan requesting benefits, noting his adoption occurred in 1970.
2

While not entirely clear, it appears from an exhibit that, in connection with a claim for social
security disability benefits, the administrative law judge refused to consider Fowler’s adoption as
a disability.
2

disclose whether he has exhausted his administrative remedies with the Social Security
Administration in order to appeal a denial of benefits in this court. In other words, there is no basis
from which this court could find that subject matter jurisdiction exists for judicial review of the
denial of disability benefits.
In short, as pled, it would be immensely unfair to permit this action to proceed and to require
the defendant to file a response, and expend public funds in doing so. Although pro se pleadings are
construed liberally, this court finds the Amended Complaint fails to set forth any plausible claim
upon which relief may be granted, or that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over Fowler’s
claims. In light of Fowler’s prior attempts to assert claims against the defendant in the District of
Arizona, this court does not find that further opportunities to cure the defects in the Amended
Complaint should be given to Fowler. At this stage, it would be futile to permit Fowler to file, ad
seriatim, his claims against the Social Security Administration or its officers. Indeed, this court
deems that this would constitute a waste of scarce judicial resources in reviewing further filings.
Accordingly, for the failure of Fowler to comply with the directives contained in the
Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 10), for the substantive reasons stated therein, and for the
reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, it is hereby Ordered that the above-captioned
matter is DISMISSED in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, it is hereby Ordered that this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3