UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHAMBERS OF 

STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 101 WEST LOMBARD STREET 

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 

(410) 962-7780 

Fax (410) 962-1812 

 January 3, 2013 

LETTER TO COUNSEL 

Re: Joann Davis v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Civil No. SAG-11-3478 

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Commissioner in the United States District Court 

for the District of Maryland on December 12, 2011 seeking review of the Commissioner’s final 

decision denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. ECF No. 1. In 

accordance with the scheduling order entered, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment 

on March 21, 2012, and the Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 10, 2012. 

ECF Nos. 8, 10, 13. However, after the undersigned’s review of the pleadings and the 

administrative record, it appears that pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 405(g), the Plaintiff filed this action 

in the incorrect venue because her principal place of residence is Washington DC, not Maryland. 

Venue properly lies in the district where Ms. Davis resides. 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides, in pertinent 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. . . . 
Joann Davis v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, 

Civil No. SAG-11-3478 

January 3, 2013 

Page 2 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) also is relevant. It provides: “The 

district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district 

shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in 

which it could have been brought.” Notably, “[t]ransfer is appropriate to avoid procedural 

complications or obstacles to adjudication, such as improper venue . . . .” Ashbourne v. Geithner, 

Nos. RWT-11-2818, RWT-11-3199 & RWT-11-3456, 2012 WL 2874012, at *2 (D. Md. July 12, 

2012). 

 In Surotchak v. Apfel, No. A. 98-0073-C, 1999 WL 301705, at *1 (W.D. Va. Feb. 8, 

1999), the plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, brought suit against the Commissioner of Social 

Security in the Western District of Virginia. The court stated that “[t]he statute granting 

jurisdiction to the federal courts to review final decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security 

[42 U.S.C. § 405(g)] clearly and unambiguously also establishes the venue for such cases.” 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) mandates that a review of the Commissioner’s final decision “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 . . . .” Surotchak, 1999 WL 301705, at *1. The court noted that 

“[t]his venue provision not only is reasonable, but most of the time it benefits a claimant because 

it allows him/her to commence an action where the claimant lives.” Id. On that basis, the court 

transferred venue to the district in which the plaintiff resided. Id. 

Here, Plaintiff does not reside in the District of Maryland, nor has she alleged that she has 

a principal place of business in this district. Therefore, venue is not proper in the District of 

Maryland. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Rather, Plaintiff resides at 2322 Raynolds Place, SE 

Washington, DC 20020. ECF No. 1 p. 1, 2 . It is immaterial that the principal place of business 
Joann Davis v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, 

Civil No. SAG-11-3478 

January 3, 2013 

Page 3 

for the Social Security Administration is Maryland. Venue is proper in the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia, and therefore venue should be transferred to that district. 

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that venue be TRANSFERED to 

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for all further proceedings. 

 Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed 

as an order. 

Sincerely yours, 

 

/s/ 

Stephanie A. Gallagher 

United States Magistrate Judge