From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cox v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Nov 16, 2011
1:11-cv-02040-UNA (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2011)

Opinion

1:11-cv-02040-UNA

11-16-2011

TiJon Cox, Plaintiff, v. Michael James Astrue, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, sues the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. He claims that defendant "[v]iolated the [FTCA] for personal injury and negligence . . .," Compl. at 1, and he seeks $8.7 million in damages. Id. at 2. Such a claim is properly brought against the United States, but is maintainable only after the plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies by "first presenting] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2675. This exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 Fed.Appx. 445, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed case [based on unexhausted FTCA claim] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."); accord GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Stokes v. U.S. Postal Service, 937 F. Supp. 11,14 (D.D.C. 1996). Plaintiff has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies under the FTCA.

Plaintiff has attached to the complaint an administrative order dated April 18, 2011, remanding his SSA claim to the Administrative Law Judge for further action. That action by the Appeals Council is separate from any FTCA exhaustion requirement and, in any event, is not a final decision over which this Court would have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Therefore, this action will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

___________________________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Cox v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Nov 16, 2011
1:11-cv-02040-UNA (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2011)
Case details for

Cox v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:TiJon Cox, Plaintiff, v. Michael James Astrue, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Nov 16, 2011

Citations

1:11-cv-02040-UNA (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2011)

Citing Cases

Tsitrin v. Lettow

FTCA claims may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the plaintiff does not exhaust…