Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

TIMOTHY ALLEN JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:26-cv-194-JES-NPM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

/

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Allen Jones’s

Complaint. (Doc. 1). Jones is a prisoner of the Florida

Department of Corrections. He seeks to compel the Social Security

Administration (SSA) to (1) provide him with “documentation” that

he is disabled and (2) pay him “over 30 grand” in disability

benefits that allegedly accrued before his incarceration. (Id.

at 5-7). United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas Mizell granted

Jones leave to proceed in forma pauperis, so the Court must review

the Complaint to determine whether it is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages from anyone

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Jones alleges that he became “100% disabled” in September

2006 as the result of a car accident. (Doc. 1 at 5). After the

accident, he successfully applied for Social Security Disability

Income (SSDI). (Id.) Jones received his benefits through a

Direct Express Card, which the SSA uses to issue payment to those

without bank accounts. (Id.) At some point, Jones was the victim

of identity theft. (Id.) The perpetrator used Jones’s identity

to order a replacement Direct Express Card. (Id.) After learning

of the fraud, the SSA “stopped” payments to both cards. (Id.)

Jones’s benefits continued to accrue until he became

incarcerated in October 2022, but he never received them. (Id.

at 5-6). Jones estimates that he is entitled to “over” $30,000

in lost benefits. (Id. at 6). He alleges that he wrote “letters”

to the SSA seeking payment of the “uncollected” benefits, but the

SSA did not respond. (Id.) Thus, Jones seeks to compel the SSA

to pay him the benefits he is allegedly owed. (Id. at 7).

Jones also seeks to compel the SSA to provide him with

“documentation” establishing that he is disabled. (Id. at 5).

One month after filing this action, however, Jones submitted copies

of grievances in which he informed prison officials that he

“finally . . . got proof from Social Security disability and now

I have documentation I’m 100% disabled.” (Doc. 4-1 at 9, 14). In

support, Jones attached a “Disability Determination Explanation”

showing that the SSA determined he was disabled in August 2007.

(Id. at 13).

After careful review, the Court concludes that the Complaint

must be dismissed without prejudice. First, Jones seeks payment

of “uncollected” SSDI benefits, but he fails to allege that he

exhausted his administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

“provides the exclusive jurisdictional basis for cases arising

under the Social Security Act.” Erickson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

431 F. App’x 809, 811 (11th Cir. 2011). “To obtain review in

federal court under [§] 405(g), a Social Security claimant must

have (1) presented a claim for benefits to the Commissioner and

(2) exhausted administrative remedies.” Micklas v. Doe, 450 F.

App’x 856, 857 (11th Cir. 2012). To meet the latter requirement,

a claimant must “proceed[] through all three stages of the

administrative appeals process,” including de novo reconsideration

by the SSA of its initial determination, a hearing before an

Administrative Law Judge, and discretionary review by the Appeals

Council. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 471-72, 482

(1986). “It is appropriate for a district court to dismiss a

complaint without prejudice when the claimant did not

appropriately exhaust his administrative remedies.” Chapel v.

Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, No. 24-11483, 2025 WL 1638846, at *1

(11th Cir. June 10, 2025).

Jones fails to show that he exhausted his administrative

remedies. He claims that he sent “letters” to the SSA seeking

payment of the “uncollected” benefits. (Doc. 1 at 6). But there

is no indication that Jones received an initial determination of

his entitlement to the lost benefits. Moreover, Jones does not

allege that he has taken any of the steps in the SSA's

administrative review process, much less exhausted them. Jones’s

“status as a pro se litigant does not exempt [him] from the

requirement that [he] plead exhaustion of administrative remedies

before obtaining judicial review.” Cruzado v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

Admin., No. 22-22583-CV, 2022 WL 10169761, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept.

29, 2022), adopted by 2022 WL 10070360 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2022).

Therefore, Jones’s claim for lost benefits must be dismissed

without prejudice.

Second, Jones seeks “documentation” establishing that he is

disabled, but it appears that this request is moot. A moot claim

“is nonjusticiable and Article III courts lack jurisdiction to

entertain it.” Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach

Cnty., Fla., 382 F.3d 1276, 1281 (11th Cir. 2004). “A cause of

action becomes moot when it no longer presents a live controversy

with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.”

Djadju v. Vega, 32 F.4th 1102, 1106 (11th Cir. 2022) (citation

omitted). “An agency’s production of records . . . moots a claim

. . . for wrongful denial of access to records, even if it produced

the records after the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court.”

Fleischman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:15-cv-897-PDB, 2016 WL

7474577, at *3 n.10 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2016).

Shortly after filing this lawsuit, Jones informed prison

officials that he “finally . . . got proof from Social Security

disability and now I have documentation I’m 100% disabled.” (Doc.

4-1 at 9, 14). To support this assertion, Jones attached a

“Disability Determination Explanation” showing that the SSA

determined he was disabled in August 2007. (Id. at 13). Because

Jones apparently received the documentation he sought from the

SSA, his claim for production of records appears to be moot. See

Brown v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 169 F. App’x 537, 540 (11th Cir.

2006) (holding that request for documents was “moot” because

plaintiff “received the documents”); Vasquez v. Barr, No. 1:18-

cv-3213-CC, 2020 WL 13544298, at *4–5 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2020)

(“Once a federal agency has processed the requested records and

made arrangements for the requester to review them, the requester’s

motion regarding the release of documents is moot.”).

For these reasons, the Court dismisses the Complaint without

prejudice and grants Jones leave to amend. If he wishes to pursue

his claim for lost SSDI benefits, Jones must allege facts showing

that he has properly exhausted all administrative remedies. If

he wishes to pursue his claim for the production of documents,

Jones must allege facts showing that the claim presents “a live

controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful

relief.” Djadju, 32 F.4th at 1106. An amended complaint also

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly

Rules 8 and 10. Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” And

Rule 10 requires a party to “state its claims or defenses in

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single

set of circumstances.”

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED :

1. Jones’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without

prejudice.

2. Jones may file an amended complaint by July 15, 2026.

Otherwise, the Court will close this case without

further notice.

3, The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Jones a civil rights

complaint form bearing the above-captioned case number

and the title “Amended Complaint.”

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 16th day

of June 2026,

ade E. STEELE

SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: TpaP-2

Copies: All Parties of Record