Rushing v. Social Security Administration

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN RUSHING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-00230 (UNA) ) ) SOCIAL SECURITY ) ADMINISTRATION et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF

No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the

application and dismiss the complaint.

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied

to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still,

pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a

complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and

a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). It “does not require

detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-

harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).

1 The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted

so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether

the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject

matter.

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., has sued the Social Security Commissioner. In

the single-page complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he “has been receiving SSI benefits” for “almost

15 years [and] has tried many times for Medicare insurance for which he is eligible his SSI

schedule is for a lifetime.” Plaintiff seeks “1.1 million dollars” and “Insurance Medicare and back

bonus[es].” Plaintiff neither identifies a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,”

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), nor alleges sufficient facts from which the Commissioner may reasonably

identify the decision being challenged. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by separate

order.

_________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS Date: February 24, 2023 United States District Judge