BROWN v. PURDY et al

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER; ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refile an amended complaint that conforms to the guidelines of this opinion within 30 days of the entry of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that failure to conform to the deadlines set forth in this Order will result in summary dismissal of this matter with prejudice. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 8/9/2012. (ld, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANGELA BROWN,

Civil Action No.: 12-4123 (JLL)

Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
DENISE PURDY,
Defendant.

LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Angela Brown’s July 2,
2012 Complaint along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Complaint and for the reasons set forth below
dismisses her case without prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND
While Plaintiff’s recitation of the facts is difficult to decipher, it appears Plaintiff filed a

claim for Social Security disability benefits after breaking her ankle while stepping onto a train
on November 16, 2011. (Compl. Ex. 1 at 3). After applying for disability benefits, Plaintiff
received a letter from Defendant, a Social Security claims examiner, on April 20, 2012 denying
Plaintiff’s benefits. (Compl. at 5). Plaintiff alleges she sent a reply letter on April 26, 2012
protesting the denial of benefits. (Id.) She subsequently filed this action in the District Court
alleging Defendant improperly denied her claim. (Id. at 3-4).

1

In her Complaint, Plaintiff avers that she has “previously . . . sought informal or formal
relief from the appropriate administrative officials regarding the acts complained of.” (Id. at 4).
In support of her claim, Plaintiff has submitted papers from various Social Security mailings,
including statements of estimated benefits (Compl. Ex. 1 at 13-19), which she alleges
demonstrate her “intitlements to recieve payments if [she] become[s] disability/disabiled
temporarly” [sic]. (Id. at 9). Although Plaintiff refers to her military service, the import of this
information is not clear, nor is the reason why she avers that her employer, New Jersey Transit,
“has nothing to due [sic] with [her] Social Security Benefits but the Military does,” (Id. at 9-10),
since she has worked primarily for New Jersey Transit since 1998. (Compl. Ex. 2 at 2). Finally,
Plaintiff alleges variously that she has not received “sick or vacation pay” or “any other
disability benefits provided by [her] employer,” (Compl. at 3), and that she receives $330.00
benefits biweekly from New Jersey Transit, which appears to be distinct from her salary
(ordinarily $2,500 a month). (Compl. Ex. 2 at 2).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
This Court is authorized to screen and dismiss complaints filed by a plaintiff proceeding

in forma pauperis if it determines that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can
be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (1996). Although pro se plaintiff’s are often held to less
stringent standards than those represented by counsel, a complaint must be dismissed where the
plaintiff has failed to provide any facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to
relief. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State Police,
88 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir. 1996).
Additionally, a plaintiff must follow certain procedures when appealing an unfavorable
Social Security determination. 20 C.F.R. § 405.1(b) (2011). If he is “dissatisfied with the initial
2

determination” on his claim, a Social Security claimant must first ask the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) to reconsider its determination of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 405.1(b)(2). If
he is “dissatisfied with the reconsidered determination, [he] may request a hearing before an
administrative law judge” (“ALJ”). 20 C.F.R. § 405.1(b)(3). If he is dissatisfied with that ruling
he may “request that the Appeals Council review” the ALJ’s “action.” 20 C.F.R. § 405.1(b)(4).
Finally, if a claimant has “pursued [his] claim through all levels of [the] administrative process
and [is] dissatisfied with [the] final decision, [he] may request judicial review by filing an action
in Federal district court.” 20 C.F.R. § 405.1(b)(5).
III.

DISCUSSION
a. Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint

contains factual allegations that are entirely unclear. Plaintiff provides no specific examples of
how Defendant has wronged her nor has she provided information about any abrogation of her
civil rights despite filing a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff’s claim revolves around her belief that
the SSA will pay her in the event of a disability. She offers SSA mailings detailing estimated
disability benefits in support of this position, but the SSA is not obligated to pay benefits on all
disability claims. It is unclear why Plaintiff mentions her military service and why she believes it
is more relevant to her disability claim than her employment for New Jersey Transit.
Additionally, her allegations regarding the income she has received since she stopped working
are perplexing.
As best as this Court can discern, Plaintiff has filed this action because she is displeased
with the outcome of her Social Security claim, but as Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently
articulated it does not state a claim for which relief can be granted since the SSA is not required

3

to pay benefits on all disability claims and Plaintiff has not provided a single example of how
Defendant has violated her rights.
b. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief can be
granted, Plaintiff does not appear to have exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing
this appeal in the District Court. The record does not suggest that she requested an initial
reconsideration from the SSA, asked for a hearing with an ALJ, or appealed the ALJ’s ruling (if
one ever existed) to the Appeals Council. Instead, after she received a letter indicating the SSA
denied her benefits, Plaintiff sent a reply letter to her claims examiner and subsequently filed this
action in the District Court. Even if Plaintiff has in fact exhausted her administrative remedies,
she has not provided supporting evidence in her Complaint. Until that time when Plaintiff has
both exhausted her administrative remedies and affirmatively documented her specific actions in
a revised complaint, this Court maintains that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies.
c. Leave to Amend
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to amend her
Complaint and cure its pleading deficiencies. In doing so, Plaintiff should be guided by the
following directives:
1.

A well-pleaded complaint requires factual support for its assertions. Plaintiff
should describe, in detail, those actions by Defendant that she believes support
her claim that Defendant discriminated against or otherwise wronged her in
denying her Social Security disability claim.

4

2.

Plaintiff should fully exhaust her administrative remedies before pursuing
litigation in this court or in any other court or jurisdiction. If Plaintiff has in
fact exhausted her administrative remedies, she should affirmatively plead to
that effect in her amended complaint.

3.

With respect to filing any new submissions, Plaintiff is advised to be cognizant
of the strict filing deadlines delineated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
the Local Rules, and this Order.

Accordingly, IT IS on this 9th day of August, 2012
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refile an amended complaint that conforms to the
guidelines of this opinion within 30 days of the entry of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that failure to conform to the deadlines set forth in this Order will result in
summary dismissal of this matter with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Jose L. Linares__________________
JOSE L. LINARES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5