Doty v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:11-cv-00424

Plaintiff Ian M. Doty, an inmate, sues the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, proceeding in forma pauperis.
This is Doty’s second suit seeking Social Security benefits; his first suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Doty alleges his childhood Social Security benefits were approved in July 2009, ceased upon his July 2010 incarceration, and an October 2010 phone conversation suggested he was ineligible while incarcerated.
In February 2011, after a prior Report and Recommendation to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Doty submitted a reconsideration request to the SSA in Cincinnati, but he has not received a final SSA decision.
Doty also asserts he sent a notarized sworn statement in April 2011 and contacted the Legal Aid Society, arguing he has exhausted administrative remedies in good faith.
The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the complaint for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction because Doty did not exhaust administrative remedies and there is no final decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the SSA decision.	Doty contends the court has jurisdiction to review his benefits claim.	The SSA decision is not final and Doty has not exhausted administrative remedies; thus no jurisdiction.	Lack of jurisdiction; dismissal warranted.
Whether Doty exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit.	Doty has engaged in reconsideration requests and related communications.	Exhaustion not completed because no final decision and no four-step process completion.	Exhaustion not satisfied; no final decision; no jurisdiction.
Whether there has been a final decision by the Commissioner after a hearing.	Requests for reconsideration and communications show ongoing review.	There is no final decision in the administrative process yet.	No final decision; jurisdiction absent.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992) (in forma pauperis dismissal due to frivolous suits)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (frivolous or malicious claims may be dismissed)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading; more than mere conclusions)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires factual content showing plausibility)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1986) (pleadings must have factual assertions; conclusory statements insufficient)
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990) (frivolousness standards applicable in this context)
Pohlmeyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 939 F.2d 318 (6th Cir. 1991) (exhaustion and final-decision requirements for SSA review)
Atkin v. Lewis, 232 F. Supp. 2d 770 (N.D. Ohio 2002) (four-step administrative process before judicial review)