Jemi-Alade III v. Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
T UNJI J., 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O . 4:25-CV-03176
§
FRANK BISIGNANO , 	§
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.1 ECF 11. 	Defendant
seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff has not exhausted the
Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) four-step administrative review process.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion (ECF
11) be GRANTED and the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
fully favorable, 2018 decision that found he was not required to reimburse the SSA
for a purported overpayment of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits.
ECF 12; ECF 12-1. 	Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges the SSA located a bank
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 5.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 13 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
account in his name holding $999,999.99 but his disabled status prevents him from
accessing it. 	ECF 8 at 4. 	Plaintiff frames his complaint as a request for judicial
review, but he ultimately seeks a determination that he is not disabled and an order
that the SSA provide him documents allowing him access to the account. Id. at 4-5.
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in July 2025. ECF 1. Defendant moved for a
more definite statement because the original complaint failed to identify the final
decision for judicial review, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint.
ECF 6; ECF 7. Plaintiff the filed a document in response, which the Court construed
as his amended complaint. ECF 8; ECF 9. Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss
for failure to state a claim (ECF 11), to which Plaintiff responded. 	ECF 12. 	The
Motion is ripe for adjudication.
II. 	Legal Standards.
To 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.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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 conduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009); Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court “accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 13 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
Alexander v. AmeriPro Funding, Inc., 848 F.3d 698, 701 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing
Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.
2004)). However, the court does not apply the same presumption to conclusory
statements or legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
Generally, the court may consider only the allegations in the complaint and
any attachments thereto in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. If a motion to dismiss
refers to matters outside the pleading it is more properly considered as a motion for
summary judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). However, the court may take judicial
notice of public documents, and may also consider documents a defendant attaches
to its motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) if the documents are referenced in the
plaintiff’s complaint and central to the plaintiffs’ claims. See Norris v. Hearst
Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007); Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000); King v. Life Sch., 809 F. Supp. 2d 572, 579
n.1 (N.D. Tex. 2011).
III. 	Analysis.
Judicial review of decisions arising under the Social Security Act is governed
by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 	See Chambers v. Kijakazi, 86 F.4th 1102, 1106 (5th Cir.
2023) (explaining the statutory grant of jurisdiction). 	Section 405(g) restricts
judicial review to a “final decision of the Commissioner . . . made after a hearing.”
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This provision contains “a jurisdictional requirement that claims
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 13 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
be presented to the agency . . . [and] a waivable requirement that the administrative
remedies prescribed by the [Commissioner] be exhausted.” Smith v. Berryhill, 587
U.S. 471, 478 (2019) (cleaned up). To fully exhaust a claim, claimants must proceed
through four stages of administrative review: (1) an initial determination of
eligibility, (2) reconsideration of the initial determination, (3) hearing before an ALJ,
and (4) Appeals Council review of the ALJ decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a). 	See
also Smith, 587 U.S. at 475–76. 	An SSA decision becomes final and reviewable
when the Appeals Council either denies a request for review or grants the request
and issues a decision. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106–07 (2000).
Although it is not clear from Plaintiff’s operative pleading (ECF 8), his
Response2 indicates he seeks review of the ALJ’s 2018 decision that found he was
not required to repay an overpayment of SSI benefits.3 ECF 12-1. Plaintiff alleges
he requested Appeals Council review of the ALJ’s 2018 decision on February 24,
2026, the same day he filed his Response. ECF 12 at 2; ECF 12-1 at 1.
Plaintiff’s pleadings indicate that he did not exhaust the SSA’s administrative
procedures prior to seeking judicial review of the 2018 ALJ decision. Regardless of
2 The Court considered the documents attached to the Response because they shed light on
Plaintiff’s convoluted pleadings and Plaintiff directly references them in the filing deemed to be
his amended complaint.
3 The ALJ concluded the overpayment was not properly assessed because it was based on false
information Plaintiff provided claiming he earned $950,000. 	ECF 12-1 at 9. 	The ALJ further
found Plaintiff was not materially at fault for triggering the overpayment because his disability,
schizophrenia, caused his false financial statements. Id.
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 13 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
the untimeliness of his request for review, he has not alleged that he received a denial
of his request for review or an Appeals Council decision. 	Therefore, Plaintiff’s
complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust the SSA’s
administrative review process. See Martin K. Eby Const. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 n.5 (5th Cir. 2004) (explaining that dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust must be without prejudice to the claimant’s right to
return to court after exhausting the administrative process).
IV. 	Conclusion and Recommendation.
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s
Motion 	(ECF 	11) 	be 	GRANTED 	and 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	be 	DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 13 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on May 26, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 13 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6