United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MICHELLE A. GUDINAS, Plaintiff,
MR. MAO, ET AL., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID H. HENNESSY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Michelle A. Gudinas ("Gudinas") filed this instant action against Mr. Mao of the Gardner Social Security Office, claiming that she has not received social security disability benefits to which she is entitled.
On March 31, 2015, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 9) granting Gudinas's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, denying her Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and directing the clerk to send to Gudinas the Court's List of Legal Service Providers in the event she wished to make efforts on her own to obtain legal assistance. The Memorandum and Order also pointed out various legal impediments to Gudinas's claims, including Rule 8 pleading deficiencies, sovereign immunity of the Social Security Office, and failure to state a cognizable cause of action based on a social security decision, because the Social Security Act provided the exclusive remedy for challenging the denial of benefits. Additionally, this Court noted that it was unclear whether Gudinas had exhausted administrative remedies with the Social Security Administration. She was directed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed, and to file an Amended Complaint curing the pleading deficiencies, within 35 days.
On May 5, 2015, Gudinas filed a Show Cause Response and Amended Complaint (Docket No. 10) as well as a Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 11) the request for appointed counsel. Included in the Amended Complaint was a "Criminal Complaint" against Mr. Mao.
I. Both the Show Cause Response and the Amended Complaint are Insufficient
A. The Show Cause Response
In Gudinas's Show Cause Response, she asks this Court not to dismiss her case because: (1) it is not frivolous; (2) she needs the money desperately; (3) without court action, justice will not be served; (4) wrongs need to be corrected; and (5) the Court needs to hear from both sides. Gudinas also claims that defendant Mr. Mao needs to answer the Amended Complaint and provide documentation of the original benefit awarded to her, because he was the person who took her paperwork and direct deposit form.
Gudinas does not indicate whether she has exhausted administrative remedies with the Social Security Administration,  nor does she address this Court's determination that there is no recourse against Mr. Mao because her exclusive remedy to challenge the denial of benefits is through the Social Security Act.
B. The Amended Complaint
In the Amended Complaint, Gudinas does not set forth her claims in accordance with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as directed. Essentially, she simply iterates the allegations contained in the original Complaint. Briefly, she again alleges she did not receive all of her disability settlement award from the Gardner Social Security Office. She gave the required forms to Mr. Mao, who has knowledge of her award. She received a notice about a deposit slip in the mail dated May 24, 2011 but claims she did not receive that deposit. Am. Compl. (Docket No. 10 at 3). She alleges that she only has received $3, 999.00 deposited in her bank account in August, 2011. She claims to have been disabled since 2007. She applied for social security benefits in both Gardner, Massachusetts and in North Carolina. She also claims that she is owed $162.20 as a fee that later was waived. As a result of all of this, she alleges she has suffered emotional distress and financial hardship. She seeks an award of the full amount of social security benefits awarded to her, as well as compensatory damages. The total damages claimed is $736, 000, 000.00.
Next, Gudinas outlines the efforts she has made to exhaust remedies. These include: (1) sending a letter to the Gardner District Attorney's Office; (2) filing a report on line (the recipient is not identified); (3) filing paperwork at the Gardner Social Security Office seeking reconsideration; (4) filing paperwork twice in the Springfield's hearing office for an administrative judge to hear her complaint; (5) filing a civil lawsuit in the Worcester Superior Court; (6) filing a report to the United States Attorney's Office; and (7) sending a letter to Washington, D.C. (recipient unidentified). She contends that all of her attempts were dismissed or else she received no reply.
Further, as noted above, attached to the Amended Complaint, Gudinas filed, on a template form, a "Criminal Complaint" against Mr. Mao, based on the failure to receive ...