Fraser v. Berryhill, No. 3:2017cv02150 - Document 27 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fraser v. Berryhill Doc. 27 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 MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION & ORD ER OF TRAN SFER Before the Court is Plaintiff Yosef S. Fraser’s February 12, 20 18 filing, which the Court construes as a Motion to Transfer [ECF No. 23]. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s m otion is GRANTED. Backgro u n d On August 15, 20 17, Plaintiff filed his Com plaint against Nan cy A. Berryhill, then Acting Com m issioner of the Social Security Adm inistration, alleging that his social security ben efits have been im properly withheld. See Com pl. 1 [ECF No. 3]. On February 12, 20 18, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff advising the Court of his new address in Tallahassee, Florida, and asking that this case be tran sferred to a district court in his new hom e jurisdiction. Plaintiff has a history of hom elessness and transiency. The record reveals that, over the past ten years, Plaintiff has lived in Texas, California, and possibly Arizon a. The Com m issioner has sen t correspondence to Plain tiff in each of those states. See Tr. 53, 64, 70 , 89, 97, 10 1, 10 4, 10 7, 10 9, 116, 141, 460 , 463, 470 1 Dockets.Justia.com (agency correspon dence addressed to Plaintiff in Richardson, Texas and Corsicana, Texas); Tr. 7, 27, 30 , 75, 156, 167, 181 (agen cy correspondence addressed to Plaintiff in Pasadena, California); Tr. 471 (agency corresponden ce addressed to Plaintiff in Phoenix, Arizon a). Plaintiff has attended hearings before an Adm inistrate Law J udge (“ALJ ”) in both California and Texas. See Tr. 28, 30 & 482, 484. In his Com plaint, Plaintiff identified his address as 3226 Aster Street, Dallas, Texas, 75211. See Com pl. 1. A letter from Dallas Metrocare Services (“DMS”) dated October 5, 20 16, explains that the address Plain tiff provided on his Com plaint is a boarding hom e, an d that DMS paid Plaintiff’s ren t at the boarding hom e from at least April 20 16 through October 31, 20 16. See Oct. 5, 20 16 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 3]. A Hom eless Certification Letter from the Salvation Arm y attached to Plaintiff’s Com plaint states that Plaintiff resided at the Salvation Arm y’s Em ergen cy Shelter from March 7, 20 16, through April 12, 20 16. See Apr. 13, 20 16 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 2]. A second letter from DMS, dated J anuary 17, 20 17, advises that Plaintiff is no longer eligible for housing assistan ce through DMS; and a third letter from DMS, dated, March 4, 20 17, states that Plaintiff is hom eless, 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 Arm y, and Union Gospel Mission. See J an. 17, 20 17 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 4] & Mar. 4, 20 17 Letter [ECF No. 3 at 5]. 2 In support of his Motion to Transfer, Plain tiff provides evidence that he recen tly m oved to Tallahassee, Florida, an d purchased a hom e. See Mot. 2 [ECF No. 23]. Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer this case to a district court in Tallahassee, Florida. An alys is Title 42, United States Code, Section 40 5(g) provides that an action for judicial review of a final decision of the Com m issioner of the Social Security Adm inistration “shall be brought in the district court of the Un ited 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 Colum bia.” 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). H owever, pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a), a district court, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, m ay transfer any civil action to an y other district where it m ight have been brought. See M ontelongo v . Social Sec. Adm in., 20 14 WL 7398 912, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30 , 20 14) (transferring case brought under §40 5(g) from district where plaintiff lived when action was filed to district where plaintiff had m oved during pendency of litigation); see also O'Brien v. Schw eiker, 563 F. Supp. 30 1 (E.D. Pa. 1983) (noting that § 140 4(a) m ay appropriately be applied to a m atter brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g)). When Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review, ven ue was proper in the Northern District of Texas, because Plaintiff was a residen t of Dallas, Texas. See 3 Com pl. 1 [ECF No. 3]. However, Plaintiff has apparen tly m oved to Tallahassee, Florida. Plaintiff’s filing dated February 12, 20 18 , which the Court construes as a Motion to Transfer pursuan t to Section 140 4(a), is proper and should be gran ted because Plaintiff no longer resides in this district. See Mon telongo, 20 14 WL 7398912, at *1 (citing Crew s v. Sullivan, 1991 WL 4640 9, at *1 (7th Cir. Apr. 3, 1991) (“The claim was denied initially, upon reconsideration, and after a hearing before an Adm inistrative Law J udge (ALJ ) in Little Rock, Arkan sas. 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 m oved to Illinois, 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) required a change of ven ue to the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.”)). The Com m issioner opposes transfer and argues that Plain tiff’s case should rem ain in this Court because Plaintiff resided in the Northern District of Texas throughout the relevant tim e period in this case – J anuary 20 0 8 through May 24, 20 17. See Resp. 2 [ECF No. 26]. However, the evidence the Com m issioner cites in support of her argum ent that Plaintiff resided in Dallas from 20 0 8 to 20 17 shows that Plaintiff received assistance from the state of California during the tim e period subsequen t to 20 11. See Pl.’s Filing 2 [ECF No. 16]. In addition, various corresponden ce sen t to Plaintiff by the Social Security Adm inistration indicates that Plaintiff resided in Dallas, Texas, Pasaden a, California, an d Phoenix, Arizon a during the tim e period between 20 0 8 an d 20 17. Plaintiff has subm itted evidence, in the form of a copy of a Corporate Warranty Deed dated J anuary 17, 20 18, 4 which nam es Plaintiff as Gran tee, that Plaintiff has purchased a hom e and is residing in Tallahassee, Florida. The Court finds that, for the convenience of the parties, and in the in terest of justice, this case should be transferred to the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division. Co n clu s io n Plaintiff’s m otion 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 , 20 18. ____________________________ REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE J UDGE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
