Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security (Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York 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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAREEM SMITH, Plaintiff, 20-CV-1624 (CM) -against- COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL TRANSFER ORDER SECURITY, et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and/or 1383(c)(3). For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. An action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and/or 1383(c)(3) may be brought only 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. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see § 1383(c)(3) (“The final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing under [§ 1383(c)(1)] shall be subject to judicial review as provided in section 405(g).”). Plaintiff alleges that he resides in Staten Island, which is located in Richmond County, New York. Because Plaintiff’s residence is not in this district, and Plaintiff makes no allegation about a principal place of business, venue is not proper in this Court under §§ 405(g) or 1383(c)(3). Richmond County falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. §112. Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2020 New York, New York hie. Iu Wyk COLLEEN McMAHON Chief United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nyed-2020.