Pickard v. Department of Justice

Filing 42

AMENDED ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AND DENYING 39 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Beeler on 7/8/11. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/8/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ls, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
WILLIAM LEONARD PICKARD,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

No. C 10-05253 LB
AMENDED ORDER TRANSFERRING
CASE TO DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
AND DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

14
15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

[ECF No. 39]

The court previously transferred this FOIA case to the Eastern District of Virginia because venue

17

was improper here. See 6/7/11 Order, ECF No. 38, at 2, 5 (holding that venue was proper in the

18

Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Arizona).1 On June 15, 2011,2 Plaintiff William

19

Pickard timely asked the court to reconsider its ruling that venue was improper here. Motion for

20

Reconsideration, ECF No. 39. In the alternative, he asked to transfer the case to the District of

21

Arizona. The government does not object to transfer to the District of Arizona instead of the Eastern

22

District of Virginia. Response, ECF No. 41. Accordingly, the court amends its prior order to

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
2

Under the “mailbox rule,” Mr. Pickard filed his motion for reconsideration on June 15,
2011 because that is when he placed the motion in institutional mail. See, e.g., Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 286, 270-71 (1988); Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003); Proof of
Service, ECF No. 39-1 at 2.
C 10-05253 LB
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

transfer the case to the District of Arizona instead (and to this extent only, grants Mr. Pickard's

2

motion for reconsideration).

3

Mr. Pickard also asked for certification of an interlocutory appeal only if the court denied his

4

motion to transfer the case to the District of Arizona instead of the Eastern District of Virginia. The

5

court thus denies the motion for certification as moot. The court otherwise denies Mr. Pickard's

6

motion for reconsideration, having already considered and rejected the general arguments in its prior

7

order at ECF No. 38.

8

This disposes of ECF No. 39.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: July 8, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 10-05253 LB
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2