Segura v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Matter Should Not Be Transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/19/2018. Show Cause Response due by 12/7/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GRACIELA SEGURA,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

No. 1:17-cv-01559-GSA
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
MATTER SHOULD NOT BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Respondent.

15
16
On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff Graciela Segura filed a complaint seeking judicial
17
18

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or
“Defendant”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the

19
Social Security Act. Doc. 1. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a residence of Patterson,
20
California. Doc.1, ¶1. At the agency hearing on January 15, 2016, however, Plaintiff testified
21
that her residence address was 16382 Vine Street, Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California.
22
AR 211. Plaintiff explained that 1318 Pinto Way, Patterson, Stanislaus County, California, was
23
24

“just for the mailing address.” AR 211.
The administrative record appears to support Plaintiff’s testimony. Although Plaintiff

25
initially received medical treatment in the vicinity of Patterson, California, medical records
26
document her receiving treatment in the vicinity of Hesperia, California, beginning no later than
27
28

1

1

January 2016. On June 11, 2015, treatment notes signed by Ali Abdul Wahid, M.D., 1108 Ward

2

Avenue, Patterson, California, stated, “[Plaintiff] is moving to another city next week.” AR 570.

3

A claimant of Social Security benefits whose application has been denied by the

4

Commissioner may seek review of such decision “in the district court of the United States for the

5

judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business or, if he does

6

not reside or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United

7

States District Court for the District of Columbia.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). If Plaintiff’s residence is

8

in Hesperia, California, this Court must transfer venue to the proper district.

9

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to

10

Show Cause on or before December 7, 2018. Such response shall either consent to the transfer of

11

the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California or show cause

12

why venue should remain with this Court. In the event that Plaintiff’s written statement has not

13

been filed before the close of business on December 7, 2018, this Court shall transfer venue.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 19, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2