Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 10, 2023

Khayat v. FBI

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:22-cv-05654
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Khayat v. FBI, Judge Cousins transferred the case to the Central District of California because venue was improper in the Northern District.

Who this affects

Josette Khayat's case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California. Joelle K. Peele and the FBI had not yet been served or appeared.

What happened

In Khayat v. FBI, Josette Khayat sued Joelle K. Peele and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Khayat represented herself, and the defendants had not been served or appeared. The complaints did not identify any events or omissions occurring in the Northern District of California.

The court determined that the Northern District was not the proper place for the case. Because Khayat lives in Hacienda Heights, California, and some alleged wrongdoing concerned that residence, the court found that the Central District of California was the proper venue. Rather than dismissing the case, it transferred the case there in the interest of justice.

Judge Cousins ordered the clerk to transfer the case, notify Khayat, and administratively close the case in the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the underlying allegations against Peele or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Khayat v. FBI · No. 5:22-cv-05654
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
Apr. 10, 2023

Background

Josette Khayat sued Joelle K. Peele and the FBI. Khayat represented herself. The court stated that it was unclear whether Khayat sued Peele in her official capacity or under legal authority. Khayat's complaints alleged numerous acts of wrongdoing, some connected to her residence in Hacienda Heights, California. The complaints did not allege events or omissions that occurred in the Northern District of California. The defendants had not been served and had not appeared.

Venue analysis

The court considered the federal venue statutes. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong district, the court may dismiss it or, if transferring serves the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where the case could have been brought. The court explained that a civil case may generally be filed where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred. For cases involving federal officers or agencies, venue may also be proper where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

After reviewing Khayat's complaints, the arguments at the March 8, 2023 case-management conference, and Khayat's later letter, the court determined that venue was not proper in the Northern District of California. Because Khayat was representing herself, the court found that transfer rather than dismissal would serve the interest of justice.

Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and notify Khayat. The case in the Northern District of California was to be administratively closed. The order transferred the case and did not decide the merits of Khayat's allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.