Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00443/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00443-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Leonard Pickard
Plaintiff
United States Department of Justice
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 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. The operative complaint is the first

amended complaint. See ECF No. 21.

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

WILLIAM LEONARD PICKARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 10-05253 LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA,

DENYING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[ECF Nos. 23, 29, and 30]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Pickard, appearing pro se and currently serving a life sentence in Arizona

federal prison following his federal conviction in the District of Kansas, filed this lawsuit alleging

that the United States Department of Justice violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and

the Privacy Act by failing to disclose certain Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) documents

following Mr. Pickard’s lawful request. Complaint, ECF No. 1; First Amended Complaint, ECF No.

20.1

 The Department moves to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. Motion to Dismiss, ECF

No. 23. 

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 38 Filed 06/07/11 Page 1 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 The court construes Mr. Pickard’s filings liberally. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015,

1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts must construe pro se filings liberally).

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

2

The court deems this matter suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Because Mr. Pickard does not reside in the Northern District of California, and instead resides at a

federal prison in Tucson, Arizona, venue does not lie in the Northern District under FOIA or the

Privacy Act. Venue is proper in the district of Arizona (where Mr. Pickard resides), the Eastern

District of Virginia (where the records are), and the District of Columbia. Because the records are in

the Eastern District of Virginia, the court transfers the case there.

II. FACTS

In 2003, following a jury trial, a federal district court in Kansas convicted Mr. Pickard of federal

drug charges and sentenced him to a life sentence. See United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162,

1177 (10th Cir. 2006). Currently, Mr. Pickard is incarcerated in a federal prison. First Amended

Complaint, ECF No. 20 at 3, ¶ 6. Mr. Pickard claims that prior to his incarceration, he was a citizen

of California and domiciled in California for over 40 years. Id. at 2, ¶ 4.

As to his FOIA request, Mr. Pickard alleges that during his trial, San Francisco Drug

Enforcement Agency Agent Karl Nichols testified about risk assessments that he had prepared in

San Francisco with the help of DEA Agents Steve Horn and Lowrey Leong in accordance with the

DEA Agent’s Manual. Id. at 2, ¶ 5(a). Mr. Pickard alleges that the San Francisco DEA office

controlled an informant who was involved in his arrest and conviction. Id. After timely making a

FOIA request with the DEA and exhausting his administrative remedies, Mr. Pickard filed a

complaint in this case on November 18, 2010 and then a first amended complaint on March 17,

2011. Complaint, ECF No. 1; First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 20. In his complaint,2

 he seeks

records under FOIA and the Privacy Act regarding the implementation and use of the DEA Agent’s

Manual section 6612.13 regarding the risk assessment factors for confidential informants. ECF No.

20 at 3-4, ¶ 8. Mr. Pickard claims that the Department of Justice has wrongfully withheld this

information in violation of FOIA. Id. at 5-6, ¶¶ 19-22. The records at issue are in the Eastern

District of Virginia. Declaration of William C. Little, ECF No. 24, ¶¶ 17-22. The Department of

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 38 Filed 06/07/11 Page 2 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

3

Justice moved to dismiss his first amended complaint, or in the alternative, to transfer this case to

either the District of Arizona, the Eastern District of Virginia, or the District of Columbia. Motion,

ECF No. 23 at 4-7.

On April 22, 2011 and April 25, 2011, Mr. Pickard asked for leave to file a second amended

complaint. Motion, ECF No. 29; Motion, ECF No. 30. The court also granted him leave to file a

late response to the motion to transfer for improper venue and gave the Department until May 16,

2011 to file an optional reply. See Motion, ECF No. 33; 5/7/11 Order, ECF No. 35.

III. ANALYSIS

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 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) (citations omitted). 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.

A. Venue is Improper in the Northern District of California

Because FOIA and the Privacy Act have their own venue provisions, the general venue

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) do 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). FOIA and the Privacy Act provide for venue in any of the following districts:

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 38 Filed 06/07/11 Page 3 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

4

(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)

(FOIA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5) (Privacy Act). 

It is undisputed that the records at issue in this case are located in the Eastern District of

Virginia. William Little Declaration, ECF No. 24 at 4, ¶¶ 17-20. This obviously is not the District

of Columbia. Thus, venue is proper here only if Mr. Pickard “resides” here.

The court holds that he resides in the District of Arizona, where he is incarcerated. No Ninth

Circuit case addresses the issue. The court appreciates that different districts and circuits have taken

different positions. Some courts – including courts here in the Northern District – hold that an

incarcerated defendant resides in the district where he is incarcerated. See In re Pope, 580 F.2d 620,

622 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Keen v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. C 97-2657 TEH (PR), 1997 WL

671711, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 1997); Morrell v. United States Dept. of Justice, No. C 96-4356

VRW, 1996 WL 732499, *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 1996); Royer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No.

1:10-cv-0146 (LMB/IDD), 2010 WL 4827727, at *4-*5 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2010) (citing In re Pope,

580 F.2d 620, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Roman-Salgado v. Holder, 730 F. Supp. 2d 126, 129 (D.D.C.

2010); Bartholemew v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:07-CV-1204, 2008 WL 4400170, at *3

(M.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2008); see also Munson v. California, No. C 09 5053 SBA, 2009 WL 264838, *

1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2009) (venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) was in Eastern District of California

because prisoner was incarcerated there and injuries occurred there). Others conclude that residence

is where the now-incarcerated defendant was last domiciled. See Simbaqueba v. United States Dept.

of Defense, No. CV 309-066, 2010 WL 2990042, at *3 (S.D. Ga. May 28, 2010); Santan v. Dept. of

Justice, No. 08-1196, 2008 WL 5574668, at *1-*2 (W.D. La. Dec. 12, 2008); Manna v. United

States Dept. of Justice, No. 93-81, 1994 WL 808070, at *2-*3 (D.N.J. Apr. 13, 1994) (collecting

cases and noting that records were located in New York); Turner v. Kelley, 411 F. Supp. 1331, 1332

(D. Kan. 1976).

On balance, the court finds more persuasive the cases holding that an individual resides where he

is incarcerated, at least for purposes of FOIA and the Privacy Act. The cases cited by Plaintiff do

not change this conclusion. Residency connotes physical presence (as opposed to, for example, the

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 38 Filed 06/07/11 Page 4 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

5

domicile needed for diversity jurisdiction). Plaintiff also cites Cohen v. United States, 297 F.2d 760

(9th Cir. 1962), but that was a criminal case holding that the tax commissioner had properly assessed

taxes by mailing a notice to the plaintiff’s last known address before his imprisonment. Id. at 774. 

The court also rejects Mr. Pickard’s argument that the Department conceded venue in an earlier

case. Thus, venue is appropriate in the District of Arizona (where Plaintiff resides), the Eastern

District of Virginia (where the records are), or the District of Columbia. Given that the records are

in the Eastern District of Virginia, see Declaration of William C. Little, ECF No. 24, ¶¶ 17-22, the

court transfers the case there. 

B. Second Amended Complaint

Mr. Pickard asks to file a second amended complaint, arguing that he is entitled to do so under

Rule 15(a) as a matter of right, and alternatively asking leave to amend. 

Mr. Pickard cannot file a second amended complaint as a matter of right. He already filed his

first amended complaint as a matter of course. See First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 20; 3/18/11

Order, ECF No. 21 (applying mail-box rule and deeming complaint timely filed as a matter of course

under Rule 15(a)); see, e.g., CSK Investments, LLC v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No.

CV–10–00452–PHX–GMS, 2011 WL 1158551, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2011) (rejecting argument

that a plaintiff may file an amended complaint as a matter of course after each 12(b) motion to

dismiss); Johnson v. Washington Mut., No. 1:09-CV-929 AWI DLB, 2009 WL 2997661, at *1 (E.D.

Cal. Sept. 16, 2009) (“The filing of a prior amendment extinguishes the right to amend as a matter of

right.”) (collecting cases). Mr. Pickard thus must seek leave of the court or permission from the

Department of Justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Given the court’s ruling that venue is not proper here, the court denies Mr. Pickard leave to

amend without prejudice to his seeking leave in the Eastern District of Virginia.

V. CONCLUSION

The court denies leave to file an amended complaint without prejudice, grants the government’s 

motion to transfer based on improper venue, and orders the case transferred to the Eastern District of

///

///

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 38 Filed 06/07/11 Page 5 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

6

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

Virginia. This disposes of ECF Nos. 23, 29, and 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2011 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 38 Filed 06/07/11 Page 6 of 6