Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 21, 2023

Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:23-cv-01548
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Social SecurityCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Nunez v. Commissioner, Judge Lehrburger granted transfer to Pennsylvania and left the Commissioner’s other requests unresolved.

Who this affects

Javier Nunez’s Social Security review case was ordered transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Commissioner’s requests concerning the individually named government attorneys and additional amendments were left unresolved for the receiving court.

What happened

Javier Nunez v. Kilolo Kijakazi concerned where Nunez’s case seeking review of a Social Security benefits decision should be heard. The Commissioner argued that the case belonged in the federal district where Nunez resides.

Nunez initially identified a Manhattan address but later identified his address as Scranton, Pennsylvania, in his complaints. He represented himself and filed several amended complaints that also named government attorneys as defendants. The Commissioner asked to transfer the case and to dismiss those attorneys as defendants.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the motion to transfer venue and directed that the case be sent to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The judge did not decide the Commissioner’s requests concerning the government attorneys or further amendments, leaving those issues for the receiving court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-01548
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Aug. 21, 2023

Background

Javier Nunez, representing himself, sought judicial review of an administrative decision denying his claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. He filed the action in the Southern District of New York. His initial complaint stated that he lived in Manhattan, New York, but the complaint and each amended complaint later identified his address as Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Nunez filed three amended complaints. They continued to name the Commissioner of Social Security as the lead defendant and also named attorneys who had entered appearances for the Commissioner as Special Assistant United States Attorneys. The Commissioner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Commissioner also asked the court to dismiss the individually named attorneys and to deny further amendments adding government attorneys as defendants.

Venue Analysis

The court explained that judicial review of a final Social Security benefits decision is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). That statute requires the action to be brought in the federal district where the plaintiff resides or has a principal place of business. The court stated that this venue requirement is mandatory and that a case filed in the wrong district must be transferred to the proper district or dismissed.

Based on the address provided in Nunez’s complaints, the court found that he resided in Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The court further found that Scranton is within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It therefore determined that the case had to be transferred there.

Ruling

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the Commissioner’s motion to transfer venue. The clerk was directed to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Because the case was being transferred, the court declined to resolve the Commissioner’s additional requests to dismiss the individually named government attorneys and to deny further amendments naming government attorneys. The court left those issues for the court receiving the transferred case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.