United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Change of
Venue. [ECF No. 10]. Defendant has filed a brief in support
of her motion, and Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro
se, has filed a response in opposition. [ECF Nos. 11 and
15]. After careful consideration of the submissions of the
parties, I am granting Defendant's Motion.
has brought this action pursuant to section 405(g) of the
Social Security Act (the “Act”) purporting to
seek review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an
application for benefits under the Act. See
Complaint [ECF No. 4]. Defendant's Motion argues that
venue in this district is improper because Plaintiff does not
reside here. Section 405(g) provides, in relevant part:
Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a
party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain
a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within
sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such
decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of
Social Security may allow. Such action shall be brought
in the district court of the United 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 Columbia. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added).
Complaint, Plaintiff lists his residence as being in Chicago,
Illinois, located in the Northern District of Illinois. [ECF
No. 4, at 4]. Plaintiff also lists the Chicago, Illinois
address as his address in his Response in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion. See ECF No. 15, at 4
(listing address as 1458 South Canal Street, Chicago, IL
60607). There is no indication that Plaintiff maintains a
principal place of business elsewhere. Because, under
Section 405(g), venue must lie in the district where
Plaintiff resides, I agree that venue in this district is
Response, Plaintiff does not argue that he resides within the
Western District of Pennsylvania. Rather he states that he
“chose the Western District of Pennsylvania . . .
because that is where the decision was mailed and where the
defendant conduct [sic] business.” [ECF No.
15, ¶ 8]. Reviewing Plaintiff's response in its
entirety, it appears that he relies on the general provisions
of 28 U.S.C. §1391 to establish venue, without
considering the specific venue provision set forth in section
405(g). [ECF No. 15]. Section 1391, however, does not apply
where, as here, a statute contains its own venue provision.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (section is applicable
“[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law”).
Plaintiff does not reside in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, venue in this district is improper. Under
Section 405(g), venue properly lies in the district where
Plaintiff resides, i.e., the Northern District of
Illinois. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue is granted, and this action is transferred to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. An appropriate Order follows.
NOW, this 4th day of October, 2016, after careful
consideration of the submissions of the parties and for the
reasons set forth in the Opinion accompanying this Order, it
is ordered that Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue
[ECF No. 10] is GRANTED, and the above-captioned action shall
be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois forthwith.
 Plaintiff's Civil Cover Sheet in
this case states that he is homeless. [ECF No. 4-1]. Although
he listed a Pittsburgh, PA address in the
“attorney” section of the cover sheet, he has
proceeded pro se throughout the case. Id.
Elsewhere on his Cover Sheet, Plaintiff checked
“citizen of a different state” when asked for his
citizenship. Id. In phone calls to the Court,
Plaintiff indicated he did not receive court mailings
addressed to the Pittsburgh, PA address and requested that
mailings instead be sent to an address in Washington, D.C.
Defendant also notified the Court that a package she mailed
to Plaintiff at the Pittsburgh address containing a copy of
the instant motion and brief was returned to sender. [ECF No.
14]. Moreover, in his Response in Opposition to the instant
Motion, Plaintiff does not contend that he resides in
Pennsylvania. [ECF No. 15]. Thus, nothing in Plaintiff's
Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, or elsewhere establishes his
residence in the Western District of Pennsylvania as required
by Section 405(g).
 Again, although Plaintiff has used
various addresses in correspondence with Defendant and the
Court, he does not allege that he actually resides at any of
these addresses. Rather, as set forth above, Plaintiff lists
a Chicago, Illinois address in both his Complaint and
Response in Opposition to this Motion. Based on the record
before me, I find no ...