Fraser v. Berryhill

Filing 27

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 23 Motion to Transfer Case Out of District/Division. This case is transferred to the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, for further proceedings. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford on 4/30/2018) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
YOSEF S. FRASER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:17-CV-2150-BT

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER OF TRANSFER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Yosef S. Fraser’s February 12, 2018 filing,
which the Court construes as a Motion to Transfer [ECF No. 23]. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
Background
On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Nancy A.
Berryhill, then Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
alleging that his social security benefits have been improperly withheld. See
Compl. 1 [ECF No. 3]. On February 12, 2018, the Court received a letter from
Plaintiff advising the Court of his new address in Tallahassee, Florida, and asking
that this case be transferred to a district court in his new home jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has a history of homelessness and transiency. The record reveals
that, over the past ten years, Plaintiff has lived in Texas, California, and possibly
Arizona. The Commissioner has sent correspondence to Plaintiff in each of those
states. See Tr. 53, 64, 70, 89, 97, 101, 104, 107, 109, 116, 141, 460, 463, 470
1

(agency correspondence addressed to Plaintiff in Richardson, Texas and
Corsicana, Texas); Tr. 7, 27, 30, 75, 156, 167, 181 (agency correspondence
addressed to Plaintiff in Pasadena, California); Tr. 471 (agency correspondence
addressed to Plaintiff in Phoenix, Arizona). Plaintiff has attended hearings before
an Administrate Law Judge (“ALJ”) in both California and Texas. See Tr. 28, 30
& 482, 484.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff identified his address as 3226 Aster Street,
Dallas, Texas, 75211. See Compl. 1. A letter from Dallas Metrocare Services
(“DMS”) dated October 5, 2016, explains that the address Plaintiff provided on
his Complaint is a boarding home, and that DMS paid Plaintiff’s rent at the
boarding home from at least April 2016 through October 31, 2016. See Oct. 5,
2016 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 3]. A Homeless Certification Letter from the Salvation
Army attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint states that Plaintiff resided at the
Salvation Army’s Emergency Shelter from March 7, 2016, through April 12, 2016.
See Apr. 13, 2016 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 2]. A second letter from DMS, dated
January 17, 2017, advises that Plaintiff is no longer eligible for housing assistance
through DMS; and a third letter from DMS, dated, March 4, 2017, states that
Plaintiff is homeless, and has been living under a bridge near the zoo in Dallas,
Texas, because he has exhausted all of his shelter options at The Bridge, the
Dallas Life Foundation, the Salvation Army, and Union Gospel Mission. See Jan.
17, 2017 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 4] & Mar. 4, 2017 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 5].

2

In support of his Motion to Transfer, Plaintiff provides evidence that he
recently moved to Tallahassee, Florida, and purchased a home. See Mot. 2 [ECF
No. 23]. Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer this case to a district court in
Tallahassee, Florida.
Analysis
Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g) provides that an action for
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a
district court, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of
justice, may transfer any civil action to any other district where it might have
been brought. See Montelongo v. Social Sec. Admin., 2014 WL 7398912, at *1
(N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2014) (transferring case brought under §405(g) from district
where plaintiff lived when action was filed to district where plaintiff had moved
during pendency of litigation); see also O'Brien v. Schweiker, 563 F. Supp. 301
(E.D. Pa. 1983) (noting that § 1404(a) may appropriately be applied to a matter
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).
When Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review, venue was proper in the
Northern District of Texas, because Plaintiff was a resident of Dallas, Texas. See
3

Compl. 1 [ECF No. 3]. However, Plaintiff has apparently moved to Tallahassee,
Florida. Plaintiff’s filing dated February 12, 2018, which the Court construes as a
Motion to Transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a), is proper and should be granted
because Plaintiff no longer resides in this district. See Montelongo, 2014 WL
7398912, at *1 (citing Crews v. Sullivan, 1991 WL 46409, at *1 (7th Cir. Apr. 3,
1991) (“The claim was denied initially, upon reconsideration, and after a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Appeals
Council denied [plaintiff’s] request for review. [Plaintiff] sought judicial review in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Because
[Plaintiff] had moved to Illinois, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) required a change of venue to
the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.”)).
The Commissioner opposes transfer and argues that Plaintiff’s case should
remain in this Court because Plaintiff resided in the Northern District of Texas
throughout the relevant time period in this case – January 2008 through May 24,
2017. See Resp. 2 [ECF No. 26]. However, the evidence the Commissioner cites in
support of her argument that Plaintiff resided in Dallas from 2008 to 2017 shows
that Plaintiff received assistance from the state of California during the time
period subsequent to 2011. See Pl.’s Filing 2 [ECF No. 16]. In addition, various
correspondence sent to Plaintiff by the Social Security Administration indicates
that Plaintiff resided in Dallas, Texas, Pasadena, California, and Phoenix, Arizona
during the time period between 2008 and 2017. Plaintiff has submitted evidence,
in the form of a copy of a Corporate Warranty Deed dated January 17, 2018,
4

which names Plaintiff as Grantee, that Plaintiff has purchased a home and is
residing in Tallahassee, Florida. The Court finds that, for the convenience of the
parties, and in the interest of justice, this case should be transferred to the
Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED, and this
case is transferred to the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, for
further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
April 30, 2018.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5