### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Duncan 

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

### Plaintiffs, ) ) 

### v. ) ) 

### Commissioner ofSocial Security et aI., ) ) 

### Defendants. ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JUN 1 52C1a Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of ColumbIa 

# 10 1002

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed without prepayment offees. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. In this complaint, which consists of43 typed pages and 220 paragraphs, with numerous exhibits appended, the plaintiffchallenges a decision ofthe Commissioner ofSocial Security, see Compi.**~~** 37-73, asserts that several ofhis constitutional and statutoryrights 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 plaintiffis a vexatious litigant orbarred under the "three strikes" rule of28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915(g), id.**~~** 199-220. See also McNeil v. UnitedStates, 2005 WL 1915842, *2 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 9,2005) (barring plaintifffrom filing any civil actions or habeas corpus action withoutpaying 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 whereinjurisdiction 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, ifall defendants reside in the same State, (2) ajudicial district in which a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,
... or (3) ajudicial district in which anydefendant is subject to personaljurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, ifthere is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1391(a). A review ofthe complaint shows that not all defendants reside in the same state, and that "a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" not in the District ofColumbia, but in Seattle, Washington and surrounding areas. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs conclusory allegation that the claims he asserts arise from events "primarily occurring[] inthe Western District ofWashington and the District ofColumbia," Compi.**~** 35, or "inthe District ofColumbia," id.**~** 11, the factual allegations inthe complaint do not support these conclusory statements. In addition, the special venue statute that applies specifically to social security appeals provides that an action forjudicial review shall be brought in the district court ofthe United States for thejudicial district in which the plaintiffresides, orhas his principal place ofbusiness, or, ifhe does not reside or have his principal place ofbusiness within any suchjudlcial district, in the United States District Court for the District ofColumbia. 42 U.S.C. 

### §405(g). In this case, the plaintiffhas attempted to argue that because he uses a mailing address that is in the Eastern District ofWashington, and is "ternporarily residing inthe Western District ofWashington," he does notreside in anyjudicial district and therefore venue in this district is proper. See PI.'s Letter to Clerk ofCourt (May 11, 2010). Such an argument is frivolous and consistent with the plaintiffs long history ofattempting to evade the barring order by filing actions in courts where venue is improper. See McNeil 

### v. UnitedStates, 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 "ifit 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 plaintiffis barred from filing in the court where venue :lS proper. McNeil v. 

# ,.I' UnitedStates, 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