“This provision clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a ‘final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.’” (quoting an earlier version of § 405(g))
How later courts described this case
- “This provision clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a ‘final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.’” (quoting an earlier version of § 405(g))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER L. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1909-EJK
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and Response
to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court-Appointed Medical Expert (Doc. 18), filed February
21, 2023. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and is currently incarcerated, has not
responded to the Motion to Dismiss, and the time to do so has expired. Upon
consideration, the Motion to Dismiss is due to be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Christopher L. Edwards, instituted this action against the
Commissioner of Social Security on October 17, 2022. (Doc. 1.) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), Plaintiff seeks court review of the “final decision of the commissioner of the
Social Security Administration.” (Id.) The Commissioner filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint, alleging that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and that Plaintiff failed to state
a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff has neither responded to the
Motion to Dismiss nor requested leave to file an amended complaint.
II. STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows for the dismissal of claims for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Parties can either facially or factually attack the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond
Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007). Facial attacks are those that “require[ ]
the court merely to look and see if [the] plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of
subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true . . . .”
Id. (internal quotations marks omitted). “Factual attacks, on the other hand, challenge
the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings, and
matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits are considered.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal when a
complaint fails to properly “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Claims
must have certain elements in order to survive Rule 12(b)(6) challenges. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in
the alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). All complaints must state a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and (6), as Plaintiff has not received a “final decision” as required by 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). (Doc. 18 at 1.) Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g) allows individuals
to pursue judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision. It
states, in relevant part, as follows:
Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security, made after a hearing to which he was a
party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a
review of such decision by a civil action commenced within
sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or
within such further time as the Commissioner of Social
Security may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district
court of the United States for the judicial district in which the
plaintiff resides. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2020) (emphasis added). In other words, a district court has subject
matter jurisdiction only when a plaintiff timely seeks judicial review of a final decision
issued by the Commissioner. Id.; see also Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977)
(“This provision clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a
‘final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.’” (quoting an earlier version of
§ 405(g))).
The meaning of the term “final decision” is defined by the Commissioner’s
regulations. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106 (2000). The regulations provide that a
claimant must complete a four-step administrative review process to obtain a judicially
reviewable final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). The administrative review process
generally consists of an initial determination, a reconsideration determination, a
hearing decision by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and a request for Appeals
Council review of an ALJ decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(1)–(5). A claimant
may obtain a final decision only by completing the administrative appeals process and
receiving either: (1) a decision by the Appeals Council; or (2) notice from the Appeals
Council that it is denying a request for review. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1481, 422.210(a).
Plaintiff indicates that he seeks judicial review of his denial of disability benefits.
(See Doc. 1.) However, Plaintiff has failed to allege or provide any evidence that a final
decision was issued in his case. (See generally id.) Additionally, Defendant submitted
the Declaration of Shaun Bass, a Program Expert in the Center for Disability and
Program Support of the Social Security Administration. (Doc. 19.) Mr. Bass avers that
Agency records show Plaintiff filed an SSI disability application on November 16,
2020. (Docs. 19 ¶ 4; 19-1.) In a notice dated June 18, 2021, the Agency informed
Plaintiff that he did not qualify for SSI payments because he was found not disabled.
(Docs. 19 ¶ 5; 19-2.) The notice informed Plaintiff that if he disagreed with this
decision, he could appeal, and that he had 60 days to ask for an appeal in writing. (Id.)
As of February 14, 2023, Plaintiff never appealed the June 2021 denial of his SSI
application. (Doc. 19 ¶ 6.) Since only a final decision by the Commissioner can
establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 405(g), the Court cannot proceed to
adjudicate the case at this time. Sutton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:20-cv-190-Orl-
18EJK, 2020 WL 4905391, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 4904644 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2020).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure
to Exhaust Administrative Remedies is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 10, 2023.
gM KIDD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE