Joffe v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs…
Steven L. Joffe, M.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-00986
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Joffe v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Menendez denied Dr. Joffe's motion to transfer the case to another court because the case had already been dismissed.
Individuals who have had federal cases dismissed and are seeking to transfer those cases to a different court, as well as anyone who filed a lawsuit against federal immigration agencies and is considering refiling after a dismissal without prejudice.
What happened
In Joffe v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Dr. Steven L. Joffe filed a lawsuit against two federal agencies in the District of Minnesota. After the court dismissed the case and entered judgment, Dr. Joffe filed a motion asking the court to transfer the case to the federal court for the District of Columbia.
The court explained that once a case has been dismissed and judgment entered, there is nothing left to transfer. A court cannot move a case that no longer exists before it, so the motion to change venue was effectively moot.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez denied Dr. Joffe's motion to transfer. However, the court noted that the earlier dismissal was "without prejudice," meaning Dr. Joffe is free to refile his case in a different court if he chooses — though the court cautioned that simply filing in a different district would not automatically fix the jurisdictional problem identified in the original dismissal order.
The detailed version
- Joffe v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs… · No. 0:26-cv-00986
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 31, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Steven L. Joffe, M.D. filed suit in the District of Minnesota against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Prior to the present order, the court had already dismissed the case (Dkt. 10) and entered judgment. After that dismissal, Dr. Joffe filed a Motion for a Change of Venue (Dkt. 12) seeking transfer of the action to the federal district court for the District of Columbia.
The Motion to Transfer Venue
A motion to change venue (also called a transfer of venue) asks a court to move a pending case to a different federal district court. The legal problem here is that the case was no longer pending — it had already been dismissed and a judgment had been entered. The court cited Lasher v. Stavis, No. 17-cv-6632 (JPO), 2018 WL 6521586, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2018), for the proposition that once a case is dismissed, there is no case to transfer.
Ruling
Judge Menendez denied the motion. Because the case had already been dismissed and judgment entered, the court had nothing before it to transfer to another district.
The court also noted, however, that the prior dismissal was expressly "without prejudice" — meaning Dr. Joffe is not barred from refiling his claims. The court advised that while he may refile in another district if he chooses, doing so will not by itself cure the jurisdictional deficiency identified in the Order of Dismissal (Dkt. 10). The nature of that jurisdictional deficiency is not described in this order.
Summary of Disposition
The Motion for a Change of Venue (Dkt. 12) was denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.