Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03762/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03762-0/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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

TRANSFERRED TO THE WESTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Re: ECF No. 2

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 

 

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.

Case 3:19-cv-03762-LB Document 6 Filed 07/03/19 Page 1 of 3
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

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

He seeks $25,000,000, court costs, and injunctive relief.3

The Eleventh Amendment likely bars the plaintiff’s claim against the State of Tennessee. The 

Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be 

construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the 

United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. 

Const. amend. XI. “The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting 

States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.” Beentjes v. Placer Cnty. Air 

Pollution Control Dist., 397 F.3d 775, 777 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal punctuation

omitted).

The individually named defendants are residents of the state of Tennessee.4 The plaintiff is 

also a resident of Tennessee, and from the complaint, the court surmises that the acts surrounding 

the allegedly wrongful arrest and detention took place there. If that is true, there is no venue 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. 

 

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

3

Id. at 13–14 (¶¶ 1–8).

4

Id. at 10.

Case 3:19-cv-03762-LB Document 6 Filed 07/03/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03762-LB 3

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

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)). 

Under the circumstances, the court orders the plaintiff to show cause in writing by July 17, 

2019 why his case should not be transferred to the Western District of Tennessee for lack of 

proper venue. By July 17, 2019, the plaintiff must do one of the following: (1) show cause in 

writing (in no more than five pages) why the court should not transfer his case to the Western 

District of Tennessee; (2) file a statement of non-opposition to the transfer; or (3) dismiss the case 

without prejudice by filing a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03762-LB Document 6 Filed 07/03/19 Page 3 of 3