Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT DONETTA W. AMBROSE , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue. [ECF No. 10]. Defendant has filed a brief in support of her motion, and Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se , has filed a response in opposition. [ECF Nos. 11 and 15]. After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, I am granting Defendant's Motion. Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to section 405(g) of the Social S
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT DONETTA W. AMBROSE , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue. [ECF No. 10]. Defendant has filed a brief in support of her motion, and Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se , has filed a response in opposition. [ECF Nos. 11 and 15]. After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, I am granting Defendant's Motion. Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to section 405(g) of the Social Se..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
DONETTA W. AMBROSE, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue. [ECF No. 10]. Defendant has filed a brief in support of her motion, and Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a response in opposition. [ECF Nos. 11 and 15]. After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, I am granting Defendant's Motion.
Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act") purporting to seek review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for benefits under the Act. See Complaint [ECF No. 4]. Defendant's Motion argues that venue in this district is improper because Plaintiff does not reside here. Section 405(g) provides, in relevant part:
Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow. Such action shall be brought 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) (emphasis added).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff lists his residence as being in Chicago, Illinois, located in the Northern District of Illinois. [ECF No. 4, at 4]. Plaintiff also lists the Chicago, Illinois address as his address in his Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion. See ECF No. 15, at 4 (listing address as 1458 South Canal Street, Chicago, IL 60607). There is no indication that Plaintiff maintains a principal place of business elsewhere.1 Because, under Section 405(g), venue must lie in the district where Plaintiff resides, I agree that venue in this district is improper.
In his Response, Plaintiff does not argue that he resides within the Western District of Pennsylvania. Rather he states that he "chose the Western District of Pennsylvania . . . because that is where the decision was mailed and where the defendant conduct [sic] business." [ECF No. 15, ¶ 8]. Reviewing Plaintiff's response in its entirety, it appears that he relies on the general provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1391 to establish venue, without considering the specific venue provision set forth in section 405(g). [ECF No. 15]. Section 1391, however, does not apply where, as here, a statute contains its own venue provision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (section is applicable "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law").
Because Plaintiff does not reside in the Western District of Pennsylvania, venue in this district is improper. Under Section 405(g), venue properly lies in the district where Plaintiff resides, i.e., the Northern District of Illinois.2 Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue is granted, and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2016, after careful consideration of the submissions of the parties and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion accompanying this Order, it is ordered that Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED, and the above-captioned action shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois forthwith.
