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 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
plaintiff Rayfield Thibeaux filed the instant complaint
seeking a review of his disability claims. In his complaint
he names Regional Social Security Commissioner Nancy
Berryhill as the sole defendant in this action.
the third time plaintiff has filed the instant action in this
Court in which he has sought a review of the denial of
certain of his Social Security benefits, as well as relief of
certain other civil rights claims. See Thibeaux v.
Stradtman, 4:17-CV-221 NCC (E.D.Mo.); Thibeaux v.
Stradtman, 4:17-CV-281 HEA (E.D.Mo.).
complaint before this Court, plaintiff states that he is
“requesting a review of [his] disability claim, which
would put an end to [his] suffering.” Plaintiff states
that the Social Security Commission failed to allow him to
“update” his file with new medical
information.Plaintiff appears to believe this is a
breach of his civil rights.
in Plaintiff's Prior Case in the District of
April of 2010, plaintiff filed concurrent claims with the
Social Security Administration 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 schizo-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. 2015). 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. 2015). In
this case, plaintiff seeks to overturn the Social Security
Administration's determination as to his disability
benefits. Additionally, it once again appears that 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.
noted in plaintiff's prior cases before this Court,
because plaintiff failed to file his Social Security appeals
when they were available to him, plaintiff has no legal
remedy with respect to his arguments relating to an earlier
entitlement to SSA benefits. See Thibeaux v. Social
Security Administration, No. 12-01588(RWR/AK) (D.C.
2015). Moreover, this ...