Flores v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 4

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Texas; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, kw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIC FLORES,

)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-v)
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
)
STATES and THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
)
INVESTIGATION,
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

No. 1:14-cv-99
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY

ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Plaintiff Eric Flores, pro se, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan. Flores applied for and was granted in forma pauperis status. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Upon initial review of the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court concludes that
none of the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Michigan. The sixty-one page complaint
alleges claims against various unnamed federal agents. Flores alleges that, while he was a pretrial
detainee at the El Paso County, he suffered certain indignities at the hands of an employees of the
federal government, including interference with his legal mail and retaliation for filing a civil
lawsuit against the El Paso Sheriff’s Department. Flores also alleges the employees of the federal
government have been using satellites that can detect individual genetic codes to cause him and
others pain and suffering, and even death. Flores believes the same satellites have been used to
interfere with the marriages of some of his relatives, by causing them to have sexual relations
outside the marriage, sometimes against the individual’s will. To be clear, the Court has not
determined whether any claim in the complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

The Court has only determined that the events mentioned in the complaint allegedly occurred in and
around El Paso.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), when convenient for the witnesses and parties, a district court
may transfer any civil action to the district where it might have been brought. Venue is proper in
the judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). All of the relevant events identified in the complaint occurred in El Paso. All
of the potential witnesses to the events likely reside in El Paso, or the surrounding states. Other than
the fact that the federal government does business in the Western District of Michigan, the lawsuit
alleges no facts connecting the claims to Michigan. The decision to transfer a civil action may be
raised sua sponte. See Carver v. Knox Cnty., Tennessee, 887 F.2d 1297, 1291 (6th Cir. 1989). For
the convenience of the witnesses and parties, the action is TRANSFERRED to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

January 31, 2014

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
Chief United States District Judge

2