Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03762/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03762-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

ORDER – No. 19-cv-03762-LB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

JOSEPH JOHNSON-BEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES M. LAMMEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03762-LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE

Re: ECF No. 1

Plaintiff Joseph Johnson-Bey #06143, who is representing himself, sued the State of 

Tennessee, James M. Lammey, and Tom Leith (both attorneys).1In his complaint, he claims 

violations of “Treaty Law Article III Jurisdiction – Violation of Unalienable Rights,” violations of 

the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), libel, slander, and defamation 

based on his alleged arrested and subsequent detention, which he characterizes as being “held for 

ransom for 121 days” against his will “even after it was clear that the court lacked jurisdiction.”2

 

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 

citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. In his complaint, the 

plaintiff also names the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, the Memphis Police Department, Heidi Kuhn 

(a “criminal court clerk), and Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett under the heading 

“Defendants” in his complaint. Id. at 10. They are not listed in the complaint’s caption or civil 

coversheet, and he did not submit summonses for them. See id; Civil Cover Sheet – ECF No. 1-1.

2 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 3, 11 (¶¶ 2–3, 7).

Case 3:19-cv-03762-LB Document 9 Filed 07/26/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03762-LB 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

He seeks $25,000,000, court costs, and injunctive relief.3 The plaintiff and the named defendants 

are residents of the state of Tennessee, and the alleged wrongful arrest and detention took place 

there. Thus, venue does not lie in the Northern District of California.

“A civil action may be brought in — (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which 

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 

of property that is that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which 

an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b). 

If venue is improper, the court may either dismiss the case without prejudice, or, if it is in the 

“interest of justice,” transfer the case “to any district or division in which it could have been 

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); In re Hall, Bayoutree Assocs., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 

1991). Ordinarily, the interest of justice requires transferring the case to a proper venue rather than 

dismissing the case. See Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2001). An action may 

be transferred to another court if: (1) that court is one where the action might have been brought; 

(2) the transfer serves the convenience of the parties; and (3) the transfer will promote the interests 

of justice. Kinney v. Gutierrez, No. 3:16-cv-02287-LB, 2016 WL 4268679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

15, 2016) (citing E & J Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994)). 

The court issued an order giving the plaintiff an opportunity to show cause by July 17, 2019 

why the court should not transfer his case to the Western District of Tennessee. He did not 

respond. Because venue is not in the Northern District, the court transfers the case to the Western 

District of Tennessee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2019 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3

Id. at 13–14 (¶¶ 1–8).

Case 3:19-cv-03762-LB Document 9 Filed 07/26/19 Page 2 of 2