McNeil v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of McNeil v. Commissioner of Social Security (McNeil v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED JUN 15 2C1a Duncan J. McNeil, III, et aI., ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy ) Courts for the District of ColumbIa Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 10 1002 Commissioner of Social Security et aI., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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'
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
McNeil v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneil-v-commissioner-of-social-security-dcd-2010.