Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02765/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02765-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaun Rosiere
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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

SHAUN ROSIERE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02765-LB 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO 

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Re: ECF No. 12

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This is a Freedom of Information Act (―FOIA‖) case.1Shaun Rosiere, proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, requested Department of Justice records relating to two criminal cases and one 

civil case (case numbers 1:08-cr-00629, 1:09-00720, and 1:05-cv-02589).2The documents are 

located in Trenton, New Jersey, and Denver, Colorado.3 Although Mr. Rosiere submitted his 

FOIA requests between March 24 and April 6, 2016, the government has not responded.4 Mr. 

Rosiere therefore initiated this suit.

5

 

1 Compl. — ECF No. 1. Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

Id. ¶ 1, Exs. 1–6.

3

Id. Exs. 1–6.

4

Id. ¶ 2–3, Exs. 1–6.

5

See generally id.

Case 3:16-cv-02765-LB Document 33 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 5
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

The United States moves to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively, transfer the case to a 

proper venue.6The court can decide the matter without oral argument, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-

1(b); and although Mr. Rosiere declined magistrate jurisdiction, a motion to transfer is nondispositive and thus this court can decide the issue. See Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. 

Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 n.1 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (collecting cases). The court transfers the case to the 

District of Nevada, where Mr. Rosiere resides.

GOVERNING LAW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), a defendant may move to dismiss a case for 

improper venue. If venue is improper, the court may either dismiss the case without prejudice, or, 

if it is in the ―interest of justice,‖ may 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 Assoc., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 

(9th Cir. 1991) (any dismissal for improper venue must be without prejudice). Ordinarily, the 

interest of justice requires transfer to the proper venue rather than dismissal. See Baeta v. Sonchik, 

273 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2001).

After a defendant challenges venue, the plaintiff has the burden to show that venue is proper. 

See Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979); Munson v. 

California, No. C 08-5053 SBA, 2009 WL 264838, *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2009). When 

considering a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the court need not accept as true all allegations in the 

complaint and may consider facts outside the pleadings. See Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 

F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004). Still, the court ―is obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the non-moving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.‖ 

Id. at 1138.

 

6 Motion to Dismiss or Transfer — ECF No. 12.

Case 3:16-cv-02765-LB Document 33 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 5
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

ANALYSIS

Venue is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, but FOIA has its own venue provision and 

thus § 1391 does not apply. See Johnson v. Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 

587-88 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying Title VII venue provision instead of section 1391); Keen v. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. C 97-2657 TEH, 1997 WL 671711, *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 

1991). In FOIA cases, then, venue is proper in: (1) the district where the plaintiff resides or has his 

principal place of business; (2) the district where the records at issue are located; or (3) the District 

of Columbia. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Here, venue is not proper in the Northern District of California. Mr. Rosiere appears to reside 

in Las Vegas, Nevada: he provides a Las Vegas mailing address on his court filings.

7

The 

government argues that the Northern District is not Mr. Rosiere’s business’s principal place of 

business, and he does not provide any information to believe otherwise.8 By Mr. Rosiere’s own 

complaint, the records he seeks are located in Colorado and New Jersey, and thus not in the 

Northern District (or the District of Columbia).

9 Mr. Rosiere requests leave to amend his 

complaint in response to the government’s motion.10 He does not, however, provide any indication 

that he could amend his complaint — which seeks documents only in New Jersey and Colorado —

to make venue proper in this district.11

In the interest of justice, instead of dismissing the case, the court transfers it to the District of 

Nevada, where Mr. Rosiere resides. 

* * *

 

7

See Compl. at 3; Notice — ECF No. 21 at 1, 2; Notice — ECF No. 24 at 1; Declination — ECF 

No. 31 at 2.

8 Motion to Dismiss or Transfer at 5–6; Motion to Amend Compl. — ECF No. 28.

9 Compl., Exs. 1–6.

10 Motion to Amend Compl. — ECF No. 28.

11 See id.

Case 3:16-cv-02765-LB Document 33 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

CONCLUSION

The court transfers the case to the District of Nevada. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02765-LB Document 33 Filed 09/27/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

SHAUN ROSIERE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-02765-LB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 27, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Shaun Rosiere

7380 S. Eastern Ave.

Ste #124265

Las Vegas, NV 89123 

Dated: September 27, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable LAUREL BEELER

Case 3:16-cv-02765-LB Document 33 Filed 09/27/16 Page 5 of 5