Luevano v. Westlaw Group ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMIE LUEVANO, Case No. 22-cv-06843-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER TO WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 9 v. 10 WESTLAW GROUP, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Alfred D. Hughes 14 Unit, in Gatesville, Texas, has filed this action against United States president Joe Biden, White 15 House staff, the governor of Texas, the state of Texas, the Matthew Bender Company, the Nexis 16 Lexis Group, and the Westlaw Group. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff indicates that he does not wish to 17 bring an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, having crossed out the reference to Section 1983 on 18 the former complaint. He states that the action is brought pursuant to the Combatant Review 19 Status Tribunal; Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct. 1584 (1997); 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and “unprocess 20 asylum (14010) deny pardon of Texas.” Dkt. No. 4 at 1. Plaintiff’s handwriting is hard to read 21 and his allegations hard to follow. The Court discerns the following allegations. Plaintiff has 22 been denied process, a pardon and good-time credits, from either President Biden, and/or White 23 House staff, and/or Vice-President Harris, and/or D. Trump, and/or certain Department of Defense 24 officials, and/or the Texas Governor. Plaintiff has not been provided certain services from 25 Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. Plaintiff has been attacked. Military 26 equipment and other devices from wires and google have been used against Plaintiff. 27 Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all 1 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the 2 || subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, 3 if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, 4 || none of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claim(s) occurred in the Northern District 5 || of California and none of the defendants reside in this district. Plaintiff's allegations appear to 6 concern events or omissions that occurred while he was housed at the Alfred D. Hughes Unit, 7 which lies within the venue of the Western District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(d). Venue 8 || therefore properly lies in the Western District of Texas. See id. § 1391(b). 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1406(a), this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western 11 District of Texas. The Clerk is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. S 14 |] Dated: 12/16/2022 Aauprerl 3 hdl |) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = 16 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28