Barbour v. Social Security Administration ( 2012 )

FILED
JUN 2 6 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts tor the District of Columbia
DEMETRIUS BARBOUR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v.
)
) Civil Action No. 12 1049
)
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and
his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
It appears that plaintiff challenges the Social Security Administration's decision to
withhold $25.00 from each monthly payment of benefits in order to recover amounts overpaid to
him in years past. The matter is not properly before the Court, however, because it does not
appear that plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.
"[F]inal SSA decisions eligible for judicial review follow four steps of an administrative review
process: (1) an initial determination; (2) a reconsideration determination; (3) a hearing before an
ALJ; and (4) review by the Appeals Council." Beattie v. Astrue, _F. Supp. 2d _, _, 2012 WL
628346, at *4 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2012) (citation omitted). In other words, only "after any final
decision by the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he is a party"
may a plaintiff seek judicial review in a federal district court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The
1
complaint sets forth no facts from which the Court could conclude that waiver of the exhaustion
requirement is warranted: where "(1) the issue raised is entirely collateral to a claim for payment;
(2) plaintiffs show they would be irreparably injured were the exhaustion requirement enforced
against them; [or] (3) exhaustion would be futile." Hall v. Sebelius, 689 F. Supp. 2d 10, 18
(D.D.C. 2009) (citations omitted).
The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Ford v. Astrue, 808 F.
Supp. 2d 150, 153 (D.D.C. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff"has only completed the
first two steps of the four-step SSA administrative-review process"); see also Maiden v.
Barnhart, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3-4 (D.D.C. 2006) (finding that denial ofuntimely request for
hearing is not a final decision for exhaustion purposes). An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
[/~fL. j J/ ~L
United States District Judge
2