UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER WILLS , : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 09

- 2458 (RMU) : v. : Re Document No: 49 : CHARLES ROSENBERG , et al. , : : Defendants

. : MEMORANDUM O PINION
D ENYI NG THE P LAINTIFF ’ S M OTION FOR R ELIEF UPON R ECONSIDERATION ; D ENYING THE P LAINTIFF ’ S A LTERNATIVE R EQUEST TO P ROCEED I N F ORMA P AUPERIS ON A PPEAL
This matter comes before the court on the pro se plaintiff’s motion for relief upon reconsideration. The plai ntiff , an inmate at the United States Penitentiary

- C anaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by conspiring to have him wrongfully convicted

. See generally Compl. In December 2009, h e

comme nced this action against a variety of people, including some employees of the F ederal
B ureau of I nvestigations or the Department of Justice, federal prisoners, Fairfax County Police Department employees in Virginia , and Washington, D.C. or Virginia residen ts , asserting claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2. 1
In February 2010, s ome of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of proper

venue , and oth er defendants filed the same two months later

. See C n ty. Defs.’ Mot. to D. ; Fed.

1 The plaintiff divides his complaint into thre e sections and restarts the paragraph numbers after each section

. See generally Compl. For the sake of clarity, the court refers to the paragraphs as if the plaintiff had number ed them sequentially throughout the entire complaint

.2 Defs.’ Mot. to D. On September 7, 2010, the court granted the mot ion s and transferr ed this case to the Eastern District of Virginia. See generally Mem. Order (Sept. 7, 2010 ). T he court determined that transfer of venue was proper because a substantial part of the events alleged by the plaintiff occurred in the Eastern District of Virginia

. Id. at 3

. The plaintiff now seeks relief upon reconsideration of that order. See g enerally Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. In this motion, t he plaintiff argues that the court incorrectly decided to transfer his case to another jurisdiction because it overlooked a number of relevant factual allegations

. 2 See Pl .’s
Mot. at 3

- 4. More specifically , the plaintiff alleges that the defendants committed a number of acts within the District of Columbia, including: entering into a conspiracy, stalking the plaintiff, engaging in illegal surveillance, soliciting false testimony, denying the plaintiff’s Fre edom of Information Act requests and generally suppressing the truth of their illegal acts in furtherance of their conspiracy. See i d. In response, t he defendants contend that this court has already conducted the relevant analysis and has properly conclu ded that the majority of the defendants’ purportedly unconstitutional acts occurred in th e Eastern District of Virginia. Defs.’ Opp’n at 3

- 4

. A court’s decision to transfer a case to a different venue is interlocutory in nature. Ukiah Adventist Hosp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n , 981 F.2d 543, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1992). A district court may revise its ow n interlocutory decisions “at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating

2 Alternatively, the plaintiff requests that the court “delay the transfer” of this case and grant him “permission to petition for mandamus in forma pauperis to vacate the transfer order.” See generally Pl. ’s Mot. With respect to the plaintiff’s request to appeal in forma p auperis , the plaintiff has failed to provide any information in the form of an affidavit that would allow the c ourt to determine if he should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly , the court denies the plaintiff’s m otion to appeal in forma pauperis . The court will, however, order that the Clerk of the Court delay the transfer of the plaintiff’s case for thirty days to allow him time to file a proper in forma pauperis request and a subsequent appeal

. See Starnes v. McGuire , 512 F.2d 918, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (holding that “a twenty

- day period for a response would be adequate in almost all cases” to allow a prisoner to appeal a transfer order).3 all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” F ED
. R. C IV
. P . 5 4(b). Relief upon reconsideration of an interlocutory decision pursuant to Rule 54(b) is available “as justice requires.” Childers v. Slater , 197 F.R.D. 185, 190 (D.D.C. 2000). The term “as justice requires” involves concrete considerations of whether t he court “has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension, or [is confronted with a situation] where a controlling or si gnificant change in the law or facts [has occurred] since the submission of the issue to the court.” Cobell v. Norton , 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C. 2004) (internal citation omitted). These considerations leave a great deal of room for the court’s discreti on and therefore , the “as justice requires” standard for grant ing relief upon reconsideration of an interlocutory decision amounts to determining “whether [such relief] is necessary under the relevant circumstances.” Id. The court has reviewed the plain tiff’s filings and concludes that there is no reason to disturb its prior judgment

. T he gravamen of the complaint, namely that the defendants presented false statements and fabricated evidence to the grand jury and at the plaintiff’s trial, stems from
act s that occurred in Virginia. Mem. Order at 3 (Sept. 7, 2010)

. Indeed, t he vast majority of the events that are described in the plaintiff’s claim

– including the plaintiff’s arrest, photo identification, arraignment, imprisonment, re

- arrest, detention an d trial

– also occurred in Virginia. Id. at 7

- 10

. As previously discussed, see Mem. Order (Sept. 7, 2010) , venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because “ a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occur red” in th at jurisdiction

. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The court thus determined that it wa s “ in the interest of justice ” to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Virginia. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See In re Hawkins , 2003 WL 22794565, at *1 (D.C. Cir . 2003) ( affirming the lower court’s determination that it was in the interest of justice to transfer venue to the4 Southern District of Iowa because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred” there)

. Consequently , the court now sees no reason to set aside its prior ruling transferring this case, and denies the plaintiff’s motion for relief upon reconsideration

. For the reasons stated above, the court denies the plaintiff’s motion for relief upon reconsideration. An O rder consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 30 th day of September , 2011.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge