Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-cv-03255 (UNA)
07-27-2022
EARLESHIA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge.
Plaintiff initiated this matter on December 13, 2021, by filing a pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. On January 8, 2022, the court reviewed the Complaint and issued an order (“Ord.”), ECF No. 3, directing plaintiff to, within 20 days, file an amended complaint that (1) substituted her residence address in compliance with D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1), and (2) identified a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,” Ord. at 1 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Plaintiff was forewarned that failure to timely comply with the order would result in dismissal of this matter without prejudice. Ord. at 2.
Plaintiff has now, more than four months beyond the given deadline, filed an amended Complaint. See ECF No. 4. Notwithstanding its untimeliness, the amended Complaint itself is insufficient. Though it lists plaintiff's residence address, see id. at caption, it fails to identify an agency decision, or otherwise allege sufficient facts from which the Commissioner may reasonably identify the decision being challenged, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In fact, despite the opportunity and extended time afforded to plaintiff, the amended Complaint actually contains even less information regarding plaintiff's claim than the already-deficient initial Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Fed. R Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Com'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that a sua sponte dismissal is appropriate for failure to state a claim). Moreover, without this information, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiff has properly exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Ford v. Astrue, 808 F.Supp.2d 150, 153 (D.D.C. 2011) (“When it comes to judicial review of SSA decisions, exhaustion is a jurisdictional requirement.”).
As such, plaintiff's IFP application is granted, and the amended Complaint, and this matter, are dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.