Thibeaux v. Berryhill

Filing 4

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal because it is legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/15/2017. (GGB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RAYFIELD THIBEAUX,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant.

No. 4:17CV741 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The
motion will be granted. Additionally, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Background
Pro se plaintiff Rayfield Thibeaux filed the instant complaint seeking a review of his
disability claims. In his complaint he names Regional Social Security Commissioner Nancy
Berryhill as the sole defendant in this action.
This is the third time plaintiff has filed the instant action in this Court in which he has
sought a review of the denial of certain of his Social Security benefits, as well as relief of certain
other civil rights claims. See Thibeaux v. Stradtman, 4:17-CV-221 NCC (E.D.Mo.); Thibeaux v.
Stradtman, 4:17-CV-281 HEA (E.D.Mo.).1

1

In his two prior cases before the Court, plaintiff alleged, among other claims, that Burl Cain
violated his rights when Cain was the Warden and plaintiff was an inmate at the Dixon
Correctional Institute in Jackson, Louisiana in 1982. According to plaintiff, he was “implanted”
with a monitoring device in the “left cheek of his rectum” that was based on a modified version
of a telemedicine instrumentation pack used to monitor astronauts’ health in space. He asserted
that he filed for Social Security disability in 2010 based on the fact that he had the monitoring

In the complaint before this Court, plaintiff states that he is “requesting a review of [his]
disability claim, which would put an end to [his] suffering.” Plaintiff states that the Social
Security Commission failed to allow him to “update” his file with new medical information.2
Plaintiff appears to believe this is a breach of his civil rights.
Background in Plaintiff’s Prior Case in the District of Columbia
In April of 2010, plaintiff filed concurrent claims with the Social Security Administration
for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security benefits. Plaintiff’s protective filing
date was April 16, 2010. With regard to disability benefits, plaintiff alleged an onset date of
January 1, 2002, and with regard to SSI he alleged a September 20, 1982 disability onset date.
Plaintiff’s last insured date for disability benefits was June 30, 2002.
On September 16, 2010, plaintiff was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist with schizoaffective disorder-depressive type and alcohol abuse and cocaine abuse. Although plaintiff met
the medical rules for a disability, he failed to meet the non-medical rules for payment because he
had not been found disabled while he still maintained disability insurance. He was advised that
he had a right to appeal the decision of the SSA, but he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed a new
application for benefits in July of 2011, and he was granted an award of SSI benefits at that time.
Plaintiff began receiving benefits in August of 2011.
On September 25, 2012, plaintiff filed an action in the Federal District Court for the
District of Columbia, asserting that he should have been granted disability insurance benefits and

device, but he was denied disability benefits and merely given SSI benefits based on a diagnosis
of schizophrenia.
2
It appears, based on Exhibit 2 that on February 14, 2017, plaintiff filed with the Social Security
Administration a Form 3441, or document entitled Disability Report – Appeal. He was
apparently attempting to appeal the denial of disability insurance benefits which occurred on
October 1, 2010. See Thibeax v. Social Security Administration, No. 12-01588 (D.C. 2015).
However, on the Form 3441, plaintiff indicated he had no new information for reconsideration of
his case. His disability insurance benefits was denied for legal reasons, not medical reasons.
2

he was entitled to SSA benefits from his alleged onset date of September 1982. See Thibeaux v.
Social Security Administration, No. 12-01588(RWR/AK) (D.C. 2015). The Social Security
Administration moved to dismiss due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies,
and the Court converted respondent’s motion to one for summary judgment. The Court found in
favor of respondent, the Social Security Administration, requiring plaintiff to exhaust his
administrative remedies, or to have filed an appeal relating to the disability benefits that he was
seeking. Because plaintiff had failed to file an appeal when one was available to him, but
instead had filed a new application for benefits in 2011, the Court found that plaintiff had
failed to exhaust his right to argue in the District Court that he was entitled to the early
SSA and disability benefits.
Unrelated to his claims in the action, plaintiff moved for a judgment on the pleadings
against respondent, the Social Security Administration, asserting that a device was implanted
into his person, specifically his buttock. He asserted that the Court should report that “The
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Bio-Medical and Behavioral
Research – the Belmont Report has been violated.”

The Court found no legal basis for

entertaining plaintiff’s claims and denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s allegations in this matter mirror his allegations brought in his prior case in the
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. See Thibeaux v. Social Security
Administration, No. 12-01588(RWR/AK) (D.C. 2015). In this case, plaintiff seeks to overturn
the Social Security Administration’s determination as to his disability benefits. Additionally, it
once again appears that plaintiff seeks a rehearing of the District of Columbia’s finding that he

3

could not “appeal” the adverse determination of the Social Security Determination due to his
own failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
As noted in plaintiff’s prior cases before this Court, because plaintiff failed to file his
Social Security appeals when they were available to him, plaintiff has no legal remedy with
respect to his arguments relating to an earlier entitlement to SSA benefits. See Thibeaux v.
Social Security Administration, No. 12-01588(RWR/AK) (D.C. 2015). Moreover, this Court is
not a Court of Appeals with relation to the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.
Plaintiff cannot keep filing frivolous lawsuit in this Court in an attempt to sway the Court
to change the outcome in this matter. Moreover, changing the cause of action and names of
defendants in the case will not be determinative of the underlying relief that plaintiff is seeking,
nor will it affect the overall finding of this Court.
The Social Security Administration found in October of 2010 that although plaintiff
met the medical rules for a disability, he failed to meet the non-medical rules for payment
because he had not been found disabled while he still maintained disability insurance.
Plaintiff failed to appeal the Social Security’s determination of that finding, and at this juncture,
there is nothing this Court can do to find otherwise. Plaintiff’s allegations, in his third lawsuit
before the Court on the same subject matter, are legally frivolous. This action is subject to
dismissal.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal because
it is legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Dated this 15th day of February, 2017

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5