Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tirhas Gebreyesus Tesfamariam filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Eastern District of Texas in 2025. Service was effected on April 6, 2026. When the case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson, defendant USCIS sought extensions for its answer deadline, and the plaintiff subsequently filed an unopposed motion to transfer venue.
On June 22, 2026, plaintiff moved to transfer the case to the District of Columbia, arguing that venue was improper in Texas. Through communications between the parties, it was discovered that plaintiff actually resides in North Carolina, not Texas—information that contradicted the complaint’s allegations regarding residency. Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed with plaintiff that North Carolina was indeed the correct residence.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to transfer venue. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), FOIA venue is proper where the plaintiff resides or, alternatively, in the District of Columbia. Because plaintiff resides in North Carolina—outside the Eastern District of Texas—venue was improper in the Texas court. The District of Columbia remains an appropriate forum where FOIA venue is always proper.
The court transferred the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court also partially granted USCIS’s request for an extension of its answer deadline, setting a deadline of Monday, August 3, 2026, for USCIS to file its answer or first responsive pleading.
Key Takeaways
- Venue in FOIA cases is proper where the plaintiff resides or in the District of Columbia; venue was improper in Texas once plaintiff’s actual North Carolina residence was established.
- A case may be transferred even under an unopposed motion when the court determines venue is improper under the applicable statute.
- The court permitted a reasonable extension for the defendant’s responsive pleading in light of the transfer, demonstrating judicial management of procedural timelines during venue changes.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how discovery of factual errors regarding a party’s residence can upend jurisdiction and venue determinations, even in early-stage litigation. While this is a procedural ruling, it demonstrates courts’ willingness to transfer FOIA cases to the District of Columbia—where federal government defendants are typically represented and where such litigation is centralized—when venue in the original forum is found to be improper.
For plaintiffs and attorneys filing FOIA suits, the decision underscores the importance of accurate venue allegations at the complaint stage. Mistakes regarding plaintiff’s residency can necessitate costly transfers and delays, though courts will generally permit reasonable extensions for responsive pleadings to accommodate the transfer.