UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Duncan J. McNeil, III, et aI., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

Commissioner of Social Security et aI., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JUN 1 5 2C1a 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of ColumbIa 

10 1002 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to 

proceed without prepayment of fees. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

In this complaint, which consists of 43 typed pages and 220 paragraphs, with numerous 

exhibits appended, the plaintiff challenges a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, see 

Compi. ~~ 37-73, asserts that several of his constitutional and statutory rights were violated in 

events that occurred in and around Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, id. .~~ 117-198, and asks 

this Court to set aside other courts' barring orders based on findings that the plaintiff is a 

vexatious litigant or barred under the "three strikes" rule of28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), id. ~~ 199-220. 

See also McNeil v. United States, 2005 WL 1915842, *2 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 9,2005) (barring 

plaintiff from filing any civil actions or habeas corpus action without paying the filing fee). 

This complaint is subject to dismissal for improper venue. The general federal venue 

statute provides in pertinent part that 

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of 

citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a 

judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same 

State, (2) ajudicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claim occurred, ... or (3) a judicial district in which any 
defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, 

if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 

28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a). A review of the complaint shows that not all defendants reside in the same 

state, and that "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" not 

in the District of Columbia, but in Seattle, Washington and surrounding areas. Notwithstanding 

the plaintiffs conclusory allegation that the claims he asserts arise from events "primarily 

occurring[] in the Western District of Washington and the District of Columbia," Compi. ~ 35, or 

"in the District of Columbia," id. ~ 11, the factual allegations in the complaint do not support 

these conclusory statements. 

In addition, the special venue statute that applies specifically to social security appeals 

provides that an action for judicial review 

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, ifhe does not 

reside or have his principal place of business within any suchjudlcial district, in 

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In this case, the plaintiff has attempted to argue that because he uses a 

mailing address that is in the Eastern District of Washington, and is "tern porarily residing in the 

Western District of Washington," he does not reside in any judicial district and therefore venue 

in this district is proper. See PI.' s Letter to Clerk of Court (May 11, 2010). Such an argument is 

frivolous and consistent with the plaintiff s long history of attempting to evade the barring order 

by filing actions in courts where venue is improper. See McNeil v. United States, 2005 WL 

1915842, * 1 ("In yet another effort to circumvent the pre-filing review 0 rders issued by this court 

... "). 

Where venue is improper, a district court "shall dismiss" the case:, or "if it be in the 

interest of justice, transfer such case" to a district where venue would be proper. 28 U.S.C. 

2 
§ 1406(a). In this instance, the Court does not find it in the interests of justice to transfer the 

case, because the plaintiff is barred from filing in the court where venue :lS proper. McNeil v. ,.I' 

United States, 2005 WL 1915842, *2. Therefore, the complaintpe-dismissed on the basis of 

improper venue. 

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

,-!" 

Date: J ~v~/1.6l' 

3