Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-07338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gonzalez v. Commissioner, Judge Furman granted the Commissioner’s motion to transfer Gonzalez’s Social Security case to the Eastern District of New York.
Hector Gonzalez’s Social Security review case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York because the filings identified Brooklyn as his residence.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Hector Gonzalez, representing himself, asked the court to review a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. Gonzalez’s complaint listed a Brooklyn, New York, address.
The Commissioner asked to move the case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The court explained that Social Security review cases must be filed in the district where the plaintiff resides or has a principal place of business. Brooklyn is in the Eastern District, and Gonzalez’s filings gave no reason to keep the case in the Southern District.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the motion to transfer. He directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York and close the case in the Southern District. The court also said that whether Gonzalez’s benefits issue involved retirement or disability benefits did not affect the venue decision.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-07338
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 12, 2021
Background
Hector Gonzalez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint under the Social Security Act seeking review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The complaint invoked 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) or 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). The Commissioner moved to transfer the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which concerns filing in the wrong venue, and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which authorizes transfer or dismissal when venue is improper.
The complaint alleged that Gonzalez resided in Brooklyn, New York, and listed a Brooklyn address. Gonzalez’s papers opposing transfer again listed a Brooklyn address and did not argue that he had his principal place of business in the Southern District of New York.
Venue analysis
The court relied on 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides that an action seeking review of a final decision by the Commissioner “shall be brought” in the federal district where the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business. The court stated that when an action is filed in the wrong district, it must be transferred to the proper district or dismissed. Because Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York, the court determined that the case had to be transferred or dismissed.
Gonzalez also submitted a letter stating that his case concerned retirement benefits rather than disability benefits. The court found that distinction immaterial to venue because § 405(g) governs judicial review of final decisions concerning both retirement and disability benefits.
Disposition
The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed the Commissioner to promptly serve Gonzalez with the opinion and order and file proof of service. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York, and close the case in the Southern District of New York. The opinion did not decide whether Gonzalez was entitled to retirement or disability benefits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.