Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Segura v. Berryhill, 1:17-cv-01559-GSA. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181213983 Visitors: 22
Filed: Dec. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TRANSFER CASE TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Doc. 22) GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff Graciela Segura filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. Doc. 1. Although the complaint alleges that Pla
More

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TRANSFER CASE TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Doc. 22)

On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff Graciela Segura filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. Doc. 1. Although the complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of Patterson, California (Doc.1, ¶1), Plaintiff's actual residence address is 16382 Vine Street, Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California. AR 211. Plaintiff's Patterson address is a mailing address only. AR 211.

A claimant of Social Security benefits whose application has been denied by the Commissioner may seek review of such decision "in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business or, if he does not reside or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). If Plaintiff's residence is in Hesperia, California, this Court must transfer venue to the proper district.

On November 20, 2018, this Court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be transferred to the Central District of California. AR 22. The order provided that Plaintiff could challenge or consent to the transfer of venue by providing a written response on or before December 7, 2019. AR 22. If Plaintiff did not file a timely written response, the Court would transfer the above-captioned case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. AR 22. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the order to show cause.

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to transfer the above-captioned case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer