UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JAI PRAKASH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civ. Action No. 13-1511 (ESH)
)
SOCIAL SECURITY )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ‘ 405(g) of the
denial of social security disability benefits. Defendant moves to dismiss the case as untimely
filed and for improper venue. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 5]. Plaintiff has not complied with
the November 12, 2013 Order to respond to the motion by December 12, 2013 [Dkt. # 6]. For
the following reasons, the Court will grant defendant’s motion and dismiss the case.
The Social Security Act requires a civil complaint to be brought “within sixty days after
the mailing . . . of notice of [the Commissioner’s final decision]” and “in the district court of the
United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This
venue in the District of Columbia is improper because plaintiff resides in Silver Spring,
Maryland, and thus should have filed this case in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland. In addition, the Appeals Council’s decision, which informed plaintiff about filing a
civil action, is dated April 18, 2013, and is presumed to have been mailed to plaintiff on that
date. See Not. of Appeals Council Action [Dkt. # 5-1, ECF pp. 21-23]. Plaintiff lodged his
Complaint, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, with the Clerk of this Court
on the “received” date of September 6, 2013, well beyond the 60-day limitations period. Hence,
the Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely and as brought in
the wrong court. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
___________/s/___________
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
DATE: December 20, 2013 United States District Judge
2