Frost v. United States Department of Justice

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 26 Motion to Transfer Case; denying 27 Motion for correction of docket entry. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/10/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
VINTON P. FROST,

7

Case No. 17-cv-01240-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CORRECT DOCKET ENTRY AND
MOTION TO TRANSFER

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 26, 27

12
Presently before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff: 1) a Motion to Transfer this

13
14

action to the district court in the District of Columbia; and 2) a Motion to Correct Docket Entry.

15

The Court DENIES both motions for the reasons set forth below.1

16

In the Motion to Transfer, Mr. Frost asks the Court to transfer this action to the district

17

court in the District of Columbia on the basis of his belief that venue in this district is incorrect

18

under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B), which governs venue in cases where the defendant is an “officer

19

or employee of the United States.” Because Mr. Frost’s claim is brought under the Freedom of

20

Information Act (“FOIA”), however, his claim is subject to the broad venue provisions of that

21

statute, set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 5523(a)(4)(B). That section provides, in relevant part, that “[o]n

22

complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides,

23

or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District

24

of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order

25

the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” As Mr. Frost

26

resides in San Francisco, California, venue in this district is proper. Thus, while Defendant

27
1

28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

Department of Justice has filed a non-opposition to Mr. Frost’s request to transfer, there appears to

2

be no basis for such a transfer on the present record and the Motion to Transfer is therefore

3

DENIED. The Court’s denial is without prejudice to Mr. Frost requesting a transfer on the basis

4

of convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) should he wish to do so.

5

The Court also denies Mr. Frost’s request to correct Docket Entry No. 24 with respect to

6

the calculation of deadlines for answering the complaint and submitting a proposed schedule for

7

the case. Mr. Frost is correct that the Department of Justice was served on July 20, 2017, but the

8

U.S. Attorney in San Francisco, which will be representing the Department of Justice in this

9

action, was not served until July 26, 2017. The Court calculates dates based on the later date.
Therefore, the docket entry is correct.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: August 10, 2017

13
14
15

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2