1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs ) 

 v. ) No. 7:22-cv-00108-O 

 ) 

HERIBERTO TELLEZ., et al. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

__________________________________________) 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404 

Plaintiffs do not—and cannot—dispute the factual premise of Defendants’ transfer motion: 

none of the individuals relevant to this action (e.g., the parties, the federal inmate sought to be 

transferred, any potential witnesses) reside in this Division and none of the events giving rise to 

Plaintiffs’ claims (e.g., the challenged decision, the continued federal custody of Hanson) occurred 

in this Division. Plaintiffs therefore spend little time attempting to justify the filing of this case in 

the single-judge Wichita Falls Division; instead, they focus almost entirely on why they believe 

this case should not be heard in the Western District of Louisiana. Defendants proposed that 

district as transferee forum for a simple reason: Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint, and the 

first count seeks a writ of habeas corpus. That claim can only be heard in the Western District of 

Louisiana and, to the extent Plaintiffs do not abandon that claim, transfer of the remaining two 

claims to that district is proper. If Plaintiffs abandon their habeas claim—and there is no evidence 

that they do—this case should nonetheless be transferred from this Division, which has no 

connection to the parties or facts underlying the other two claims, to the Western District of 

Louisiana or one of the four alternative transferee locations listed in Defendants’ motion. See 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 183
2 

Motion to Transfer (“Mot.”) at 2 n.3, ECF No. 10 (identifying the Dallas Division and three other 

venues that, unlike this Division, have “some arguable connection to the parties and their dispute”). 

I. There Is No Connection Between Plaintiffs’ Claims and This Division. 

Plaintiffs devote the first section of their opposition to alleged “factual inaccuracies” in 

Defendants’ motion. Pls. Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. (“Opp’n”) at 1-4, ECF No. 20. Plaintiffs assert 

that the decision at issue was “made in the Northern District of Texas” and that “all the key 

decisionmakers in the decision at issue are in the Northern District of Texas.” Id. at 2-3 (emphasis 

in original). But what they do not assert is that there is any connection between the decision, 

decisionmakers, and this Division. There is none. Nor is there any connection between Plaintiffs’ 

habeas claim and this Division, where it was improperly filed. In such circumstances, the Fifth 

Circuit has held—in a decision cited by Defendants that Plaintiffs nowhere address—that it is an 

abuse of discretion to decline to transfer to a different division within the same district that has a 

greater connection to the underlying facts. See In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 

2013) (granting mandamus directing transfer from Marshall Division to Tyler Division). 

The following table illustrates how disconnected this Division is from the facts giving rise 

to Plaintiffs’ three claims. 

N.D. Tex. 

(Wichita 

Falls Div.) 

W.D. La. N.D. Tex. 

(Dallas 

Div.) 

N.D. 

Okla. 

W.D. 

Okla. 

D.D.C. 

Defendants reside X X X 

Plaintiffs reside X X 

Federal inmate 

resides 

 X 

Location of 

proposed inmate 

transfer

 X 

Decision made or 

communicated

 X X 

Other potential 

witnesses reside 

 X X X X X 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 184
3 

II. Both Public and Private Factors Support Transfer from This Division to a Forum 

with Some Connection to the Underlying Claims, Such as the Western District of 

Louisiana or the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. 

The only rationale that Plaintiffs offer for filing in this Division is that venue is proper in 

this District and that this Division is allegedly roughly halfway between Oklahoma City (where 

some, but not all, of the Plaintiffs reside) and Dallas (where some, but not all, of the Defendants 

reside). Opp’n at 3-4. That rationale does not justify this case being heard in a division that lacks 

any connection to the claims or underling facts. In asserting that it does, Plaintiffs mischaracterize 

the § 1404 analysis as being limited to “a pure matter of convenience for the parties.” Opp’n at 1. 

Later in their opposition, when Plaintiffs ultimately acknowledge that both public interest and 

private factors are at play, they misapply those factors to the facts of this case. Id. at 8-10. 

As a preliminary matter, Defendants have not filed a “convenience motion.” Contra Opp’n 

at 5. Defendants have instead moved that this case be heard elsewhere pursuant to § 1404, which 

authorizes transfers based on “four private and four public factors.” Mot. at 5 (citing Gulf Oil 

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947)); see also In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th 

Cir. 2008); In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., No. 22-11009, 2022 WL 16549164, at *2 (5th 

Cir. Oct. 31, 2022) (§ 1404 transfers are “based on convenience and justice”). 

The public interest factors overwhelmingly favor transfer, but Plaintiffs’ opposition all but 

ignores them. As Defendants explained in their motion, there is no local interest in having this 

case adjudicated in a division where none of the parties reside, none of the underlying events 

occurred, and none of the potential evidence exists. See Mot. at 6. Rather, this is exactly the “sort 

of localized case where the citizens of” other venues—including the Western District of Louisiana, 

the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, and multiple districts in Oklahoma—“have 

a greater ‘stake’ in the litigation than the citizens of” the Wichita Falls Division. In re Planned 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 185
4 

Parenthood, 2022 WL 16549164, at *3 (citing In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 317–18). Further, 

there is a public interest in declining to reward Plaintiffs’ selection of this single-judge Division in 

which to hear claims that have no connection to the Division. See Mot. at 7.1

Plaintiffs nonetheless maintain that the public interest factors do not warrant transfer, 

asserting that “the public factors either favor staying in Texas or are in equipoise.” See Opp’n at 

9-10. But Plaintiffs arrive at the wrong answer by asking the wrong question. The proper inquiry 

is not whether there is a public interest in “staying in Texas”; the question is whether there is a 

public interest in having this case heard in this Division. See In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 

288 (5th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the public interest factors “apply as much to transfers between 

divisions of the same district as to transfers from one district to another”). Defendants agree that, 

if Plaintiffs were to abandon their habeas claim or this Court were to dismiss it, this case could

remain in Texas—namely, in the Dallas Division of this District. See Mot. at 2 n.3. 

Indeed, much of Plaintiffs’ opposition addresses whether (ignoring the habeas claim) this 

case should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana as opposed to whether it should be 

transferred from this Division. See, e.g., Opp’n at 9 (asserting that there is a local interest “in favor 

of reviewing the decisions of Texas-based federal officials in Texas” while saying nothing about 

any such local interest in this Division). Defendants proposed the Western District of Louisiana 

as a transferee forum because Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint that contained a habeas claim 

that can only be brought in that district. See Compl. ¶¶ 40-43, ECF No. 1. In light of that claim 

and the lack of any connection to this Division, the private and public interest factors favor transfer 

to the Western District of Louisiana. See Mot. at 5-8. But if that claim is no longer in the case, 

1

 If the Court transfers the case to the Dallas Division, the case should be reassigned in the 

normal course. See N.D. Tex. Am. Special Order No. 3-342. 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 186
5 

either because Plaintiffs abandon it or do not re-file the claim in the event the Court dismisses it 

for the reasons previously set forth, Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. at 6-8, ECF No. 11; see Munaf v. 

Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 691 (2008) (dismissing habeas claim upon review of preliminary injunction 

is appropriate where “insuperable objection to maintaining the bill clearly appears”) (citation 

omitted), Defendants agree that the remaining claims could be heard in other venues, including in 

the Dallas Division of the Northern District (where Regional Director Tellez and potential 

witnesses regarding the challenged decision reside), the Western District of Oklahoma (where 

Attorney General O’Connor resides and where Oklahoma requests the federal inmate be 

transferred), the Northern District of Oklahoma (where DA Kunzweiler resides), or the District of 

Columbia (where Director Peters resides). The ultra vires and declaratory claims “might have 

been brought” in any of these venues, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and all of them have a stronger 

connection to the underlying facts. 

The private factors also favor transfer. If the habeas claim is re-filed in the Western District 

of Louisiana, potential witnesses (including the acting warden and federal inmate) reside in that 

district. If the habeas claim no longer remains, the private factors still support transfer, likely to 

the Dallas Division of the Northern District, where Regional Director Tellez, the Designation and 

Sentence Computation Center staff, and other potentially “relevant Defendant witnesses who made 

the decision” reside. See Opp’n at 3. Indeed, Plaintiffs identify no witnesses who reside in this 

Division. Moreover, the lone reason that Plaintiffs advance for why this Division is supposedly 

“the most convenient division in the Northern District of Texas”—its geographic location—does 

not withstand scrutiny. Plaintiffs do not identify any potential witnesses who would have to drive 

the approximately 45 additional minutes from Oklahoma City to Dallas (as opposed to Wichita 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 187
6 

Falls)—and Dallas is significantly more convenient not only for Defendants but also for Plaintiffs’ 

lead counsel, whose office is located in the Dallas suburb of Cedar Hill. 

In short, this case should not be heard in this Division. None of the parties or potential 

witnesses reside here, and the public interest would not be served by having the single-judge 

Wichita Falls Division resolve allegations by Oklahoma officials that government officials in 

Dallas violated a federal statute by declining to transfer a federal inmate to their custody from a 

federal prison in Louisiana. If Plaintiffs choose to pursue their habeas claim, the Court should 

transfer to the Western District of Louisiana. If not, the Court should transfer to the Dallas 

Division of the Northern District of Texas. 

CONCLUSION 

This Division is not the appropriate forum for Plaintiffs’ claims. For the reasons articulated 

herein and in Defendants’ motion, this Court should transfer this action, after dismissal of the 

habeas claim, from this Division to the Alexandria Division of the Western District of Louisiana 

if Plaintiffs choose to re-file their habeas claim there or, if they do not, to the Dallas Division of 

the Northern District of Texas. 

Dated: November 3, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 

CHAD E. MEACHAM 

United States Attorney 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

BRIGHAM J. BOWEN 

Assistant Director 

/s/ Michael J. Gaffney 

JOSEPH J. DEMOTT (Va. Bar No. 93981) 

MICHAEL J. GAFFNEY (D.C. Bar 1048531) 

BRIAN C. ROSEN-SHAUD 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 188
7 

Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

1100 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: (202) 514-2356 

Email: michael.j.gaffney@usdoj.gov 

BRIAN W. STOLTZ 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Counsel for Defendants 

 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 189
8 

Certificate of Service 

On November 3, 2022, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk 

of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing 

system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all parties who have appeared in the case 

electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2). 

/s/ Michael J. Gaffney 

Michael J. Gaffney 

Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 22 Filed 11/03/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 190