Davis v. Social Security Administration

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/26/13 that plaintiff has 14 days to submit an amended complaint clarifying his claim to identify the decision he seeks to have reviewed or reopened and briefly state the basis for his claim that the decision was incorrect. If plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint by July 10, 2013, this action may be dismissed. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff)(dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BRYAN O’DELL DAVIS
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-C-0704

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Defendant.

ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Bryan Davis filed a complaint naming the Social Security Administration
as defendant. He also filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. To authorize a litigant to
proceed in forma pauperis, the court must determine: (1) whether the litigant is unable to pay
the costs of commencing the action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and (2) whether the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The court may order a party to file a more definite statement where the original pleading is
vague or ambiguous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); see also Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516,
518 (7th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff has filed the required affidavit asserting inability to pay, in which he indicates
that he is unemployed with no income or valuable assets aside from a 1999 Chevy Astro.1 It
thus appears that he satisfies the poverty requirements of § 1915. However, on review of the
complaint I am unable to determine whether the action is frivolous or states a claim upon which

1

Plaintiff checked “no” on the question of whether he owned a car. However, he then
wrote in “1999 Chevy Astro” worth $1000.00.

relief may be granted. The “statement of claim” section of the complaint is blank. In the “relief”
section, plaintiff states: “Just want my case reopen.” (R. 1 at 6.) The district court has
jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the “final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security made after a hearing” on a claim for disability benefits, but it is unclear whether plaintiff
seeks judicial review under this provision. “A refusal to reopen or a decision to apply
administrative res judicata is a discretionary one not subject to judicial review.” Johnson v.
Sullivan, 936 F.2d 974, 976 (7th Cir. 1991).
I will afford plaintiff 14 days to submit an amended complaint clarifying his claim. In the
amendment, he should identify the decision he seeks to have reviewed or reopened and briefly
state the basis for his claim that the decision was incorrect. If plaintiff fails to submit an
amended complaint by July 10, 2013, this action may be dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 26th day of June, 2013.
/s Lynn Adelman
_____________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge