Demos, John Robert v. Trump ( 2024 )

1 FILED 2 Feb 12 2024 3 CLERK, US. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT aa 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Case No. 24-cv-00186-TSH 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER OF TRANSFER 10 DONALD JOHN TRUMP, 11 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is 14 || incarcerated in Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington. Plaintiff brings suit 3 15 || against former United States president Donald John Trump, alleging that defendant Trump 16 || engaged in insurrection, rebellion, and treason on January 6, 2021,' when he actively supported i 17 || the riots in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff lists defendant Trump’s residence as Mar-a-Lago, Florida. Zz 18 || See generally Dkt. No. 1. Section 1391(b) of the United States Code, title 28, provides that venue 19 || for a civil action is proper in either the judicial district in which any defendant resides or in the 20 |} judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 21 occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant reside in this district, and the 22 || relevant events did not occur in this district. Defendant Trump resides in Palm Beach County, 23 || which is located in the Southern District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 89(c). The relevant events 24 || took place in Washington, D.C., which is located in the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 88. 25 || Venue therefore properly lies in either the Southern District of Florida or the District of Columbia. 26 27 | plaintiff refers to the riots as happening in 2020 and 2023, see Dkt. No. 1 at 4, 7, 12, but the 2g || Court presumes that these references were typographical errors and that Plaintiff is referring to the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. ] See id. § 1391(b). The Court will exercise its discretion and TRANSFER this action to the judicial 2 || district where defendant Trump resides, the Southern District of Florida.’ 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1406(a), this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern 5 || District of Florida. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: 2/12/2024 9 TAN. Ip THOMAS S. HIXSON 10 United States Magistrate Judge 1] 2B 16 Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 2 The Court’s transfer of this action for lack of venue is non-dispositive and therefore within a 23 magistrate judge’s authority. In a different context, the Ninth Circuit has held that a ruling that does “not dispose of any claims or defenses and [does] not effectively deny [the plaintiff] any 24 || ultimate relief sought” is non-dispositive and properly within a magistrate judge’s authority pursuant to 28 § 636(b)(1)(A). See S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th 25 Cir. 2013) (motion to stay). A transfer of venue does not address the merits of the parties’ claims, dispose of any claims or defenses, or foreclose any relief sought; nor does the transfer terminate 26 || the case within the federal court system. Instead, the transfer order simply results in the action being transferred to another district court. Accordingly, a magistrate judge may transfer a case for 27 || improper venue. See, e.g, Gomes v. Mathis, No. CV 17-7022 SVW (SS), 2019 WL 11720210, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019) (collecting cases); Gomes v. Silver State Mortg., No. C 09-2340 ag || RS, 2009 WL 10674100, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2009); Paoa v. Marati, No. CIV. 07- 00370JMSLEK, 2007 WL 4563938, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 28, 2007).