Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_22-cv-00374/USCOURTS-alnd-7_22-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaula Lanear Allen
Plaintiff
Social Security Administration, Commissioner
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

SHAULA LANEAR ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

COMMISSIONER,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 7:22-cv-00374-ACA

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Shaula Lanear Allen filed a pro se response to the Social Security 

Administration’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 24). Later, Ms. Allen retained counsel to 

represent her (doc. 26) and the court gave counsel until October 27, 2022 to file a 

counseled response to the motion to dismiss (doc. 28). Three months after the 

deadline passed, plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to the Commissioner’s motion 

to dismiss. (Doc. 35). Plaintiff’s counsel has provided no explanation as to the delay 

nor has he requested leave to file a response out of time. (See id.). Thus, the response 

is due to be struck as untimely. 

Striking the response in opposition to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss 

will not prejudice Ms. Allen because, although the response raises two arguments in 

defense of the Commissioner’s motion, counsel merely identifies its contentions but

FILED

 2023 Feb-06 PM 03:41

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:22-cv-00374-ACA Document 36 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 3
2

fails to provide any substantive argument in support. (Id. at 2). “[B]rief[s] must 

include an argument containing appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, 

with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” 

Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). Arguments that are 

not “briefed before the court” are forfeited and will not be addressed. Access Now, 

Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004); see United States v. 

Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871–72 (11th Cir. 2022). Because the court would not have 

considered these “arguments,” striking the response does not prejudice Ms. Allen. 

Having reviewed Ms. Allen’s response to the Commissioner’s motion to 

dismiss, the court finds that Ms. Allen has failed to establish this court’s jurisdiction 

to hear her claim. In a letter attached to Ms. Allen’s complaint, Ms. Allen 

acknowledges receipt of a partially favorable decision on August 24, 2021. (Doc. 1 

at 6). Ms. Allen contends that the Commissioner’s decision incorrectly calculated 

her income and sets out the information she believes substantiates this claim. (Id.). 

Ms. Allen may be correct that her income was miscalculated, but this court is without 

jurisdiction to make that determination. It is undisputed that Ms. Allen failed to 

administratively appeal the overpayment recalculation. (Doc. 15-1 at 4–5 ¶¶ 15–16). 

Because Ms. Allen failed to complete the administrative appeal process, she did not 

exhaust her administrative remedies. Therefore, this court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction and must dismiss her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 7:22-cv-00374-ACA Document 36 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 3
3

Procedure 12(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 760–61 

(1975). 

Based on the foregoing, the court STRIKES plaintiff’s counsel’s response in 

opposition of the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 35). The court WILL 

DISMISS Ms. Allen’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1). 

DONE and ORDERED this February 6, 2023.

 _________________________________

 ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:22-cv-00374-ACA Document 36 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 3