Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SAM JACKSON
VERSUS
FRANK BISIGNANO, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-1716
SECTION: “M”(1)
JUDGE BARRY W. ASHE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
*********************************** *
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 16). Because Mr.
Jackson has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, it is recommended
that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and the plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice.
Background
Plaintiff Sam Jackson is a recipient of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). On August
15, 2025, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) issued a notice to Mr. Jackson that his
monthly payment would be reduced from $967 to $457.50 because records obtained by SSA
showed that he received wages of $1,104 in July 2025. Rec. Doc. 1-2. The notice included
instructions on how to appeal the decision.1 Id. at 4.
Mr. Jackson filed the present lawsuit on August 20, 2025, challenging the decision using a
form Complaint. The Commissioner of the SSA appeared and filed the present Motion to Dismiss,
arguing that Mr. Jackson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. In
1 The notice explains under the “How to Appeal” heading that “You must request the appeal in writing. You can go to
www.ssa.gov/non-medical/appeal to complete and submit the “Request for Reconsideration” form, SSA-561-U2
online. You may also contact us by phone to request the form or go to our website at www.ssa.gov/forms to locate the
form. If you need help with the form, please call us.” Rec. Doc. 1-2, at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-01716-BWA Document 21 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5

2
opposition, Mr. Jackson does not contest this assertion.2 In reply, the Commissioner submits a
declaration reporting that it has no record of Mr. Jackson filing a Request for Reconsideration
Form. 3 Rec. Doc. 20-1.
Law and Analysis
1. Standard on Motion to Dismiss
“[W]hen the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement
to relief, this basic deficiency should be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and
money by the parties and the court.” Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir.
2007) (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to
move for expeditious dismissal when a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, “[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d
191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “[t]o survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Id. (citation, footnote, and quotation marks omitted). On that point, the United
States Supreme Court has explained:
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.
2 Mr. Jackson’s opposition memorandum complains that he was removed from the social security office and the library.
He complains about losing half of his benefits.
3 It also reports that “SSA records reflect that the wages in question have since been removed from Plaintiff’s record
and he is presently receiving the maximum SSI amount minus a 10% withholding for a preexisting overpayment that
predated the August 14, 2025 notice.” Rec. Doc. 20-1.
Case 2:25-cv-01716-BWA Document 21 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
“In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a district court must limit
itself to the contents of the pleadings, including attachments thereto.” Collins v. Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). The Fifth Circuit has recognized that the court may
also consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss by the defendant if they are referred to in
the plaintiff’s complaint and central to her claim. Id. at 498-99; see Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 814 F.3d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 2016)
2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
“Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after
a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review
of such decision by a civil action . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Thus,
claimants must generally proceed through a four-step process before they can
obtain review from a federal court. First, the claimant must seek an initial
determination as to his eligibility. Second, the claimant must seek reconsideration
of the initial determination. Third, the claimant must request a hearing, which is
conducted by an ALJ. Fourth, the claimant must seek review of the ALJ's decision
by the Appeals Council.
Smith v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 471, 475–76 (2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400); see Weinberger v.
Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766 (1975) (“The term ‘final decision’ is not only left undefined by the Act,
but its meaning is left to the Secretary to flesh out by regulation.”)
3. Analysis
The Court considers the Complaint and the attachments thereto because the notice
submitted by Mr. Jackson is the basis for his claim.4 The notice is dated August 14, 2025, and
includes instructions on how to appeal. Mr. Jackson filed the present lawsuit five days after the
4 The Court does not consider the declaration attached to the Commissioner’s Reply memorandum.
Case 2:25-cv-01716-BWA Document 21 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5

4
date of the notice. Although the form Complaint Mr. Jackson executed states “the plaintiff has
exhausted administrative remedies,” he did not attach a decision of the Appeals Council, the ALJ,
or a decision on any Request for Reconsideration. Nor does he contest the Commissioner’s
assertion in the Motion to Dismiss that he did not file a Request for Reconsideration of the August
14, 2025, notice.
The only possible conclusion from the Complaint, its attachments, and the briefing is that
Mr. Jackson has not only failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, he has not even initiated
the administrative appeal process. As a result, he is not yet entitled to judicial review and his
complaint should be dismissed.5
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 16) filed by
the Commissioner be GRANTED and that plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
OBJECTIONS
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and
recommendations in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen (14) calendar
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by
5 The Commissioner requests that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. But a dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is typically without prejudice. See Martin K. Eby Const. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit,
369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) (“When a district court dismisses a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, the dismissal is without prejudice to the claimant's right to return to court after it has
exhausted its administrative remedies.”); Robert A. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:24-CV-00043-BT, 2024 WL
4269676, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2024); Parker v. Astrue, No. CIV.A. 12-1942, 2013 WL 1183085, at *2 (E.D. La.
Feb. 26, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV.A. 12-1942, 2013 WL 1196624 (E.D. La. Mar. 22,
2013).
Case 2:25-cv-01716-BWA Document 21 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 5

5
the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of February, 2026.
Janis van Meerveld
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01716-BWA Document 21 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5