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).

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?