United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
ADRIANE B. JACKSON, O/B/O J.J., Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Jackson’s response to the
order to show cause.Having carefully reviewed Jackson’s
response, the Court concludes that her arguments are without
merit. Jackson has failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction over
this Social Security appeal. The case will be dismissed.
Jackson, J.J.’s mother, is presently an inmate in the
custody of the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton,
Missouri. On October 16, 2017, in a form complaint and acting
pro se, Jackson alleged that she was filing a social security
action for benefits on behalf of J.J., seeking review of the
Commissioner’s final decision. She asserted that she
had received notice of the Appeals Council decision “2
years ago” and claims that she received the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) “one year
ago.” Jackson had filed a similar action in this Court
on behalf of J.J. on May 11, 2016. See Jackson v.
Colvin, No. 4:16-CV-0672 CDP (E.D. Mo. 2016). The
government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction in that action based on
Jackson’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
but Jackson failed to respond to the motion. That case was
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
on November 22, 2016, without prejudice.
light of the aforementioned, the Court ordered Jackson to
show cause why the present action should not be dismissed for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing
J.J.’s claims to this Court.
U.S.C. § 405(g) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis
for judicial review in cases arising under the Social
Security Act. In order to obtain review under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), a Social Security claimant must: 1) receive a
final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing, 2)
bring a civil action within 60 days after the mailing of the
notice of such final decision, and 3) file the action in the
district court for the district in which she resides or has
her principal place of business. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-64 (1975).
The second and third of these requirements specify a statute
of limitations and appropriate venue, respectively. The first
requirement is central to the grant of subject-matter
jurisdiction, empowering district courts to review only those
decisions by the Commissioner that are “final”
and “made after a hearing.” Weinberger,
422 U.S. at 764. The Commissioner will have made a
“final decision” only after the claimant
completes certain steps of the administrative process, which
include a hearing before an ALJ and a request for Appeals
Council review of the ALJ’s decision. 20 C.F.R. §
complaint for judicial review, filed October 16, 2017,
Jackson claims that she received the decision of the ALJ
“one year ago” and received notice of the Appeals
Council decision “2 years ago.” In the response
to the Order to Show Cause, Jackson states:
I notified about 2 week ago for child’s claim J.J. for
not dismissing the case. I’m not sure if you notified
me back. I wrote 2 case numbers followed while reviewing the
facts of an untimely manner. Anyways I probably wrote the
first number from one year ago so please allow that letter
which I think you did respond. Don’t have any of mail
from a week ago.
response, Jackson has not articulated when she claims to have
received notice of an administrative appeal record. Nor has
Jackson provided information that she made a subsequent
request for Appeals Council review, which is required for
this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over
clear that as of July 12, 2016, the Office of Disability
Adjudication and Review had no record that an administrative
appeal had been taken on J.J.’s claim. And, as noted in
the Court’s November 16, 2017 Memorandum and Order,
with no administrative appeal of record as of July 2016, it
is unclear how the Appeals Council could have rendered a
decision in or around October 2015, that is, two years before
the commencement of this civil action, as claimed by Jackson.
Moreover, whether Jackson received notice from the ALJ one
year ago or from the Appeals Council two years ago, there is
no question that over 60 days have passed since her alleged
receipt of such notice.
on the record now before the Court, including that in Case
No. 4:16-CV-0672 CDP, I find that this Court does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over this civil action because
Jackson has not properly alleged and shown that J.J.’s
administrative remedies were properly exhausted and that the
Commissioner issued a final decision after a hearing on
J.J.’s claim for benefits.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is
DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action