United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. The motion will be granted.
Additionally, the Court will dismiss this action as legally
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
plaintiff Rayfield Thibeaux filed the instant civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff sues: Terry M.
Stradtman, Regional Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
seeks judicial review of an administrative decision by the
Social Security Administration, relating to a denial of
benefits. It appears that in April of 2010,
plaintiff filed concurrent claims with the SSA for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security benefits.
plaintiff's protective filing date was April 16, 2010.
With regard to disability benefits, plaintiff alleged an
onset date of January 1, 2002, and with regard to SSI he
alleged a September 20, 1982 disability onset date.
plaintiff's last insured date for disability benefits was
June 30, 2002.
September 16, 2010, plaintiff was diagnosed by a clinical
psychologist with shizo-affective disorder-depressive type
and alcohol abuse and cocaine abuse. Although plaintiff met
the medical rules for a disability, he failed to meet the
non-medical rules for payment because he had not been found
disabled while he still maintained disability insurance. He
was advised that he had a right to appeal the decision of the
SSA, but he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed a new
application for benefits in July of 2011, and he was granted
an award of SSI benefits at that time. Plaintiff began
receiving benefits in August of 2011.
September 25, 2012, plaintiff filed an action in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting that
he should have been granted disability insurance benefits and
he was entitled to SSA benefits from his alleged onset date
of September 1982. See Thibeaux v. Social Security
Administration, No. 12-01588(RWR/AK) (D.C. 2012). The
Social Security Administration moved to dismiss due to
plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies, and the Court converted respondent's motion to
one for summary judgment. The Court found in favor of
respondent, the Social Security Administration, requiring
plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies, or to have
filed an appeal relating to the disability benefits that he
was seeking. Because plaintiff had failed to file an appeal
when one was available to him, but instead had filed a new
application for benefits in 2011, the Court found that
plaintiff had failed to exhaust his right to argue in the
District Court that he was entitled to the early SSA and
to his claims in the action, plaintiff moved for a judgment
on the pleadings against respondent, the Social Security
Administration, asserting that a device was implanted into
his person, specifically his buttock. He asserted that the
Court should report that “The National Commission for
the Protection of Human Subjects of Bio-Medical and
Behavioral Research - the Belmont Report has been
violated.” The Court found no legal basis for
entertaining plaintiff's claims and denied his motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
allegations in this matter mirror his allegations brought in
his prior case in the Federal District Court for the District
of Columbia. See Thibeaux v. Social Security
Administration, No. 12-01588(RWR/AK) (D.C. 2012). In
this case, he also seeks to overturn the Social Security
Administration's determination as to his SSI and
disability benefits. Additionally, plaintiff seeks a
rehearing of the District of Columbia's finding that he
could not “appeal” the adverse determination of
the Social Security Determination due to his own failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies.
Court is not a Court of Appeal for the Federal District Court
for the District of Columbia, nor is this Court a
“Social Security Administration Court, ” as
plaintiff mistakenly calls it. plaintiff's allegations
have already been decided by the District Court for the
District of Columbia. This action must be dismissed as
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is subject to
dismissal because it is legally frivolous. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs remaining motions are DENIED
AS MOOT ...