1 **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**  ) MELVIN A. JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
v. ) Civil Action No. 12

- 1251 (BAH) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ) ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In June 2012, t he Plaintiff, proceeding pro se , filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) C.J. Sturek of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). The Defendant removed this action from Superior Court, see ECF No. 1,
and has moved to dismiss the c omplaint as moot . Def.’s Mot. to Substitute the Comm’r of Social Security for C.J. S t urek and to Dismiss the Compl., ECF No. 7. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted and this case will be dismissed.
The instant complaint is based on ALJ Sturek’s delay in issuing a decision on the
Plaintiff’s application for supplemental social security income followi ng a remand of the
Plaintiff’s earlier case to SSA

. See Compl., ECF No. 3

- 1; Jones v. Astrue , 654 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2009), rev’d , 647 F.3d 350 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (with instructions to remand the case to the

S ocial Security Commissioner). On September 9, 2012, th e Defendant’s motio n to substitute

t he SSA Commissioner as the proper defendant was granted and the Plaintiff was instructed to respond to the pending motion to dismiss

. See Order, ECF No. 8. The Plaintiff filed his2 opposition, see Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Substitute the Co mm’r of Social Security for Judge C.J.
Sturek, ECF No. 9, the Defendant filed a R eply, ECF No. 10, and the Plaintiff was permitted to file a Surreply, ECF No. 11.

T he Defendant moves to dismiss th e instant complaint as moot in light of the

“ U nfavorable” decision ALJ Sturek issued on July 16, 2012. Def.’s Ex. A, ECF No. 7

- 1 (Not. of Decision)

. That decision is the subject of a separate action pending before the undersigned judge that the Plaintiff filed on August 31, 2012. Jones v. Astrue , No. 12

- 1458 ; see Compl., ECF No. 1 (“Request the Court to Overturn SSI Unfavorable Decision by Judge C.J. Sturek”)

. In his opposition, the Plaintiff continues his attac k against ALJ Sturek with
unsubstantiated accusations that he has a “personal prejudice and hatred of minorities seeking
benefits , ” Pl.’s Opp’n at 1 , to which defendant replies that “it was ALJ Sturek who awarded [Plaintiff] the disability benefits that he is currently being paid . . . .” Def.’s Reply at 1 ; see Not. of Decision at 19, n.6 (“This decisio n does not in any way affect the favorable decision

. . . entered on the application filed on March 31, 2008 finding that the claimant was disabled as of March 4, 2008.”) . In any event, the Social Security Act precludes an “action against . . . any
office r or employee [of the SSA] . . . under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

T he Plaintiff’s judicial remedy lies exclusively under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

. See Friedman v.
Sebelius , 686 F.3d 813, 826 (2012) (reiterating that “Section 405(h) [of 42 U.S.C.]

. . . makes [42 U.S.C.] § 405(g) the exclusive avenue for judicial review of administrative decisions” ) (quoting Nat’l Kidney Patients Assoc. v. Sullivan , 958 F.2d 1127, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ) (alterations in original) . Sinc e the Plaintiff is pursuing his § 405(g) remedy in Civ. Action No. 12

- 1458, this case ,3 predicated on a moot claim , will be dismissed . A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ 

# Beryl A. Howell
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: Ma y 2 , 2013