From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haltom v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 2, 2013
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01439-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01439-LJO-SMS

02-02-2013

MICHAEL HALTOM, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION

OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On September 28, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Haltom filed a complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for Social Security disability benefits. On the date of filing, Plaintiff resided in Thornton, San Joaquin County, California. Doc. 18-1. Plaintiff's residence has not changed since the filing date. Id.

Federal law is clear on the issue of venue: the plaintiff must file suit in the judicial district in which he or she resides or a has a principal place of business. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). If the plaintiff files in the wrong district, the Court may transfer venue to the proper district. Id. In this case, although Plaintiff properly filed his complaint in the Eastern District of California, she improperly filed it in the Fresno Division rather than the Sacramento Division where it was properly venued.

Good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS this case TRANSFERRED to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sandra M. Snyder

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Haltom v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 2, 2013
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01439-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2013)
Case details for

Haltom v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HALTOM, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 2, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01439-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2013)