Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DINA HALSEY-RICKS,
Plaintiff.
V.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:23-cv-00548
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
Plaintiff Dina Halsey-Ricks filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
seeking judicial review of the denial of an application for social security disability
benefits by Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See
Dkt. 1. “It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent
and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” United States
v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). Judicial review of an action by the
Commissioner in federal district court is available only “in the district court of the
United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). This “consent to suit against the [Commissioner] constitutes a limited
waiver of sovereign immunity and must be strictly construed.” Ro Ane v. Mathews,
476 F. Supp. 1089, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 1977) (citing an earlier version of the Social
Security Act), aff’d sub nom. Roane v. Harris, 604 F.2d 37 (9th Cir. 1979).
Per Plaintiff’s complaint, she resides in Hanover, New Hampshire. See Dkt.
1 	at 	1. 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	Plaintiff 	has 	resided 	in 	New 	Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and Colorado, but never Texas. See Dkt. 10-3 at 58, 64; Dkt. 10-4
at 2. As such, “this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this case because
the plaintiff has not brought suit ‘in the district court of the United States for the
judicial district in which [he] resides,’ 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), namely, the United States
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 23, 2023
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:23-cv-00481-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 2

2
District Court for the [Northern District of Texas].” Rivard v. Saul, No. 2:21-cv-
00128, 2021 WL 3044240, at *2 (D. Me. June 25, 2021). Congress has provided a
mechanism for this situation:
Whenever a civil action is filed . . . or an appeal, including a
petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with
such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction,
the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or
appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action or appeal could
have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or
appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court
to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed
in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.
28 U.S.C. § 1631. Where, as here “the statutory deadline for filing an appeal . . .
ha[s] passed, and no evidence suggest[s] bad faith in [Plaintiff’s] filing with the
district court[,] . . . it [i]s in the interest of justice to transfer the case pursuant to
§ 1631.” In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien, 747 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2014). Accordingly, this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, where Plaintiff resides and venue is
proper, and the court will have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint.
SIGNED this 23rd day of October 2023.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00481-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 2