Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Secuirty Administration
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-09251
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Pickering-George v. Commissioner, Chief Judge Swain denied IFP status and dismissed the Social Security review action for failing to show a final agency decision.
John Pickering-George’s federal action seeking review of a Social Security benefits decision was dismissed, and he was denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees. The existing restriction requiring him to obtain permission before filing new actions without prepaying fees remained in effect.
What happened
In Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, John Pickering-George asked the federal court to review a Social Security decision about his disability benefits and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. He also asked for permission to file because an earlier court order required him to obtain permission before filing new actions without paying fees.
The court found that Pickering-George did not clearly identify the Social Security decision he was challenging or provide facts showing that he had received a final agency decision after completing the required administrative review process. The court also found that the new case continued a pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Pickering-George’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the action. The court terminated the other pending matters, kept the earlier filing restriction in effect, closed the case, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Secuirty Administration · No. 1:21-cv-09251
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 10, 2022
Background
John Pickering-George, proceeding without a lawyer, sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security concerning the denial or termination of disability benefits. He also requested permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
An earlier order barred Pickering-George from filing a new action without prepaying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. The opinion describes several prior related proceedings, including an earlier Social Security case that was remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The court later warned that the earlier case was closed and that further filings would not be considered there.
In the present action, Pickering-George’s filing referred generally to a Social Security decision denying or terminating benefits and attached several agency notices. Those materials included a 2015 notice disapproving a claim, a 2019 notice stating that he was eligible for Supplemental Security Income, and a 2020 notice describing monthly Supplemental Security Income and back payments. He also attached a 2021 request for reconsideration referring to a 2015 decision. The court found the filing difficult to understand.
Court’s reasoning
For a federal district court to review a Social Security decision under Section 405(g), the claimant must identify a final decision by the Commissioner. The opinion explains that this generally requires presenting a benefits claim and completing the administrative review process, including an initial determination, reconsideration, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and review by the Appeals Council.
The court found that Pickering-George did not identify the decision he sought to challenge or allege facts showing that he had obtained a final decision from the Commissioner. The court also found that his disjointed allegations and numerous legal citations made the issues difficult to understand. In addition, considering his litigation history, the court concluded that the action did not depart from his pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation and that he had not shown good cause for permission to proceed without prepaying fees.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Pickering-George’s request for leave to file the action without prepaying fees and dismissed the action. The court terminated all other pending matters, directed the Clerk to close the case and mail the order to Pickering-George, and left the earlier restriction on filing new actions without prepaying fees in effect. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.