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 OPINION
DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF UPON RECONSIDERATION; DENYING THE
PLAINTIFF’S ALTERNATIVE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
This matter comes before the court on the pro se plaintiff’s motion for relief upon
reconsideration. The plaintiff, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary-Canaan 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, he
commenced this action against a variety of people, including some employees of the Federal
Bureau of Investigations or the Department of Justice, federal prisoners, Fairfax County Police
Department employees in Virginia, and Washington, D.C. or Virginia residents, 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, some of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of proper
venue, and other defendants filed the same two months later. See Cnty. Defs.’ Mot. to D.; Fed.
1
The plaintiff divides his complaint into three 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 numbered them sequentially throughout the entire complaint.
Defs.’ Mot. to D. On September 7, 2010, the court granted the motions and transferred this case
to the Eastern District of Virginia. See generally Mem. Order (Sept. 7, 2010). The 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 generally Pl.’s Mot. for Recons.
In this motion, the 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 Freedom of
Information Act requests and generally suppressing the truth of their illegal acts in furtherance of
their conspiracy. See id. In response, the defendants contend that this court has already
conducted the relevant analysis and has properly concluded that the majority of the defendants’
purportedly unconstitutional acts occurred in the 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 own 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 pauperis, the plaintiff has failed to provide
any information in the form of an affidavit that would allow the court 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 motion 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).
2
all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(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 the 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 significant 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 discretion and
therefore, the “as justice requires” standard for granting 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 plaintiff’s filings and concludes that there is no reason to
disturb its prior judgment. The 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
acts that occurred in Virginia. Mem. Order at 3 (Sept. 7, 2010). Indeed, the 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 and 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 occurred” in that jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The court
thus determined that it was “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 the
3
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 Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and
contemporaneously issued this 30th day of September, 2011.
RICARDO M. URBINA
United States District Judge
4
Wills v. Rosenberg
Combined Opinion