# Dorothy Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, C.D. California · October 19, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10039361

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** October 19, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10039361

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DOROTHY BAILEY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01431-SKO
11
Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
12 SHOW CAUSE, LIFTING STAY, AND
v. TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE U.S.
13 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
14 ANDREW M. SAUL, CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
15 Commissioner of Social Security, (Docs. 5 & 6)
16 Defendant.
_____________________________________/
17
18 On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff Dorothy Bailey filed this action seeking judicial review of a
19 final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application
20 for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1.)
21 On October 7, 2020, the Clerk of Court issued a notice that the proceedings were stayed in
22 this matter pursuant to General Order No. 615 (“G.O. No. 615”). (Doc. 4.) G.O. No. 615, issued
23 April 14, 2020, stays all Social Security actions filed after February 1, 2020, until the Commissioner
24 may begin normal operations at the Office of Appellate Hearings Operations and may resume
25 preparation of a certified copy of the administrative record. See E.D. Cal. G.O. No. 615.
26 In an order to show cause (“OSC”) filed on October 9, 2020, this Court noted that while the
27 civil cover sheet indicates Plaintiff’s county of residence is Kern County, Plaintiff’s complaint and
28 its attachments indicate that Plaintiff resides in Lomita, CA, which is not located within the
1 jurisdiction of the Eastern District of California. (See Doc. 5.) The Court directed Plaintiff to show
2 cause as to why this action should not be transferred to the Central District of California, Western
3 Division, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Section 405(g)”) (see Doc. 5), and Plaintiff timely
4 responded (see Doc. 6).
5 In her response to the OSC, Plaintiff stated that when she originally filed her claim for
6 benefits, she resided in Bakersfield, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern
7 District of California. (Doc. 6.) At some point before a final determination on her claim was made,
8 Plaintiff moved to Lomita, California, her current place of residence. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff’s claim
9 continued to be adjudicated in Bakersfield. (Doc. 6.)
10 Relying on the general venue provision contained in 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), which provides
11 that a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
12 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” Plaintiff contends that venue is proper in this district.
13 (Doc. 6.) By its own terms, however, the general venue provision applies “[e]xcept as otherwise
14 provided by law.” 20 U.S.C. 1391(a), (e)(1); accord Fournier v. Johnson, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1172,
15 1174–75 (D. Ariz. 2009); De La Rosa v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. A–17–CV–
16 833–LY, 2018 WL 2944433, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 12, 2018); Brown v. Colvin, Civil Action No.
17 16-33, 2016 WL 5792777, at *1–2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2016). Section 405(g), under which Plaintiff
18 brought this action, specifically provides that the action must be filed in “the judicial district in
19 which the plaintiff resides.” 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Thus, the general venue provision does not govern.1
20 Pursuant to Section 405(g), because Plaintiff does not currently reside in the Eastern District
21 of California, venue in this district is improper. See, e.g., Barrett-Barksdale v. Colvin, No. 1:14–
22 cv–1480–SKO, 2014 WL 4929444, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2014); Hodgens v. Astrue, No. 1:12–
23 cv–00471–LJO–SKO, 2013 WL 149587, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013). Accordingly, this matter
24 shall be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.
25 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
26 1. The order to show cause is DISCHARGED;
27
1 The Court notes that even if 28 U.S.C. 1391 were controlling in this case, the relevant subdivision would not be (b)(2),
28 as cited by Plaintiff, but instead (e)(1). The latter subdivision cover actions where the defendant is an officer or
1 2. The stay in this matter shall be LIFTED; and
2 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer the above-captioned case to the United
3 States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

Sheila K. Oberto
6 Dated: October 16, 2020 /s/ .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7

8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10039361. Public record. Not legal advice.