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, Co mmissioner of Social Security , Civil No. SAG-11-3478
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Commi ssioner in the United St ates District Court for the District of Maryland on December 12, 20 11 seeking review of th e Commissioner’s final decision denying her claim for Supplementa l Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. ECF No. 1. In accordance with the scheduling order entered, Pl aintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2012, and the Defendant filed its Mo tion 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 residenc e is Washington DC, not Maryland. Venue properly lies in the dist rict where Ms. Davis resides

. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides, in pertinent part: Any individual, after any final deci sion of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irresp ective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to hi m of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissione r 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 princi pal place of business within any such judici al district, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. . . .Joann Davis v. Michael J. Astrue, Co mmissioner 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, 201 2 WL 2874012, at *2 (D. Md. July 12, 2012).
In Surotchak v. Apfel , No. A. 98-0073-C, 1999 WL 3017 05, at *1 (W.D. Va. Feb. 8, 1999), the plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, brought suit against the Co mmissioner 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 th e 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 judici al 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. Th erefore, 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 businessJoann Davis v. Michael J. Astrue, Co mmissioner of Social Security , Civil No. SAG-11-3478 January 3, 2013 Page 3 for the Social Security Administration is Marylan d. Venue is proper in th e United States District Court for the District of Columbia , and therefore venue should be tr ansferred to that district. For the reasons set forth above, it is he reby ORDERED that venue be TRANSFERED to the United States District Court for the Distri ct of Columbia for al l 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