Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

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

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181121a00 Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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. The complaint alleges that Plaintif
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a residence of Patterson, California. Doc.1, ¶1. At the agency hearing on January 15, 2016, however, Plaintiff testified that her residence address was 16382 Vine Street, Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California. AR 211. Plaintiff explained that 1318 Pinto Way, Patterson, Stanislaus County, California, was "just for the mailing address." AR 211.

The administrative record appears to support Plaintiff's testimony. Although Plaintiff initially received medical treatment in the vicinity of Patterson, California, medical records document her receiving treatment in the vicinity of Hesperia, California, beginning no later than January 2016. On June 11, 2015, treatment notes signed by Ali Abdul Wahid, M.D., 1108 Ward Avenue, Patterson, California, stated, "[Plaintiff] is moving to another city next week." AR 570.

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.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause on or before December 7, 2018. Such response shall either consent to the transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California or show cause why venue should remain with this Court. In the event that Plaintiff's written statement has not been filed before the close of business on December 7, 2018, this Court shall transfer venue.

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