1 FILED 3 DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 4 APR 14 2008 5 MARY L.M. MORAN CLERK OF COURT 6 DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM 7 8 | SCOTT M. ROSEN, ? Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 06-00005 10 vs. ORDER Regarding Transfer and Service of 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL Plaintiffs Complaint SECURITY, 13 Defendants.

=z. This is an action for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social owe 15 Security pursuant to

(g), brought by Plaintiff, Scott Rosen, (“Rosen”). Rosen is a 16 current resident of the Philippines who was recently denied social security benefits.’ Because venue W7 © is proper in the District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court will transfer the action. 18 A federal district court has jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Commissioner of 19 Social Security.

(g), 1383(c)(3).* The Court may raise the issue of defective venue 20 sua sponte. Costlow v. Weeks,

(9" Cir. 1986). The provision governing venue 2] in cases involving review of decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security is also found in 48

(g). Under § 405(g), a civil action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the 23 Commissioner of Social Security may be brought (1) only in a judicial district where the plaintiff 24 25 ' The Court notes that Rosen has filed copies of a Return of Service form and certified mailing receipt. The Court can only assume that Rosen believes this action to be sufficient in order to timely serve Defendant with the 26 || Complaint. The Court forewams Rosen that he has failed to personally serve the Defendant. Service of the Complaint by certified mail is insufficient. Rosen is directed to review FED. R. Crv. P. 4(c)(2) and (e) in addition to the local rules 27 || for the District Court of the District of Columbia. 38 * The judicial review provisions of

(g) (Title II of the Social Security Act) are expressly incorporated into § 1383(c)(3) (Title XVI). See Kildare v. Saenz,

(9th Cir. 2003).

1 || resides or has his principal place of business or if such circumstance does not exist, (2) in the Unite 2 || States District Court for the District of Columbia. Rosen has not provided the Court with an 3 || information that he has any ties to Guam whatsoever. Rosen, in fact, admits that he resides in th 4 || Philippines and indicates that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter because it is □□□□ neares 5 || United States District Court” that hears Social Security claims. See Complaint at p. 1, Docket Nc 6 || 1. His belief is mistaken. Under this provision, venue is proper only in the District of Columbi 7 || because Rosen neither resides in nor has his principle place of business in Guam. 8 Pursuant to

(a), when venue lies in the wrong district, the court sha 9 || dismiss, or if in the interests of justice, transfer the action to the division in which it could have bee 10 || brought. The Court finds that the “interests of justice” dictate that this action be transferred to th 11 || District of Columbia. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to th 12 || District Court for the District of Columbia. 13 / 14 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of April, 2006. 15 16 . "7 / Me tc, OGER T. BENITEZ 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 * The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for Southern California, by designation.