Johnson v. Harris County, Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Kamilah Johnson, individually
and on behalf of M.J., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
Harris County, Texas, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-26-2954
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION ON
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER ON MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 6. Pending
before the court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 4. The court
recommends that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, be
DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 4, is
DENIED.1
1. Background Facts and Procedural History
On April 13, 2026, Plaintiff Kamilah Johnson filed this civil
rights action under Section 1983 in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint
names twenty-five Defendants. Id. at 2–4. Four of the named
defendants are entities—Harris County, Texas Department of
1 A magistrate judge may order or deny transfer of a case to another district as a
non-dispositive matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Mulvey v. Vertafore, Inc.,
No. 21-cv-213, 2021 WL 3089386, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2021).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02954 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
Family and Protective Services, Texas Child Protective Services,
and Texas Children’s Hospital. Id. The other twenty-one
defendants are individuals, who are sued in their individual or
official capacities, or both. Id. at 7–8. They are state and county
employees and officials, Plaintiff’s former attorneys, physicians,
social workers, guardians ad litem, and foster parents. Id. at 7–8.
Plaintiff lists a Houston, Texas address for each of the twenty-one
individual Defendants. Id. at 2–4.
2. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
On April 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. ECF
No. 3. She seeks an ex parte temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. The Certificate of Service attached to the
Emergency Motion states that Plaintiff served a copy of the motion
“upon the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS.” ECF No. 3-1 (emphasis in original). It
does not appear that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of
the Emergency Motion.
To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking an ex parte temporary
restraining order, the court may issue such an order without notice
to the Defendant only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any
efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it
should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff did not certify,
in writing, that she made any efforts to give Defendants notice of
her request for a temporary restraining order. Because Plaintiff
failed to comply with this requirement, the court recommends that
Case 4:26-cv-02954 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a temporary restraining order be
denied.
Additionally, as to Plaintiff’s request for an ex parte
preliminary injunction, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1)
instructs that “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction only
on notice to the adverse party.” Because Plaintiff failed to comply
with the notice requirements of Rule 65, the court recommends
that Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a preliminary injunction
be denied.
Accordingly, the court recommends that Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this
Memorandum and Recommendation to file written objections.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file
objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal
conclusions, except for plain error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 147–49 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th
Cir. 1988).
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, on April 13, 2026. ECF No. 1. The same day,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). ECF No. 4. She seeks transfer to the Western District of
Texas, Austin Division. Id.
Plaintiff’s Complaint states that a substantial part of the
events giving rise to her claims occurred in Harris County.
ECF No. 1 at 6. Venue is therefore proper in the Houston Division
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Case 4:26-cv-02954 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
Where venue is proper, as it is here, the transfer of venue
analysis is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Atl. Marine, 571 U.S.
at 56. Section 1404(a) states, “For the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer
any civil action to any other district or division where it might have
been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Under § 1404(a), the preliminary question is whether the
civil action at issue “might have been brought” in the movant’s
proposed destination venue. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Venue is proper in “a
judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants
are residents of the State in which the district is located[.]”
28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). Plaintiff’s Complaint lists a Texas address
for each of the twenty-five Defendants. ECF No. 1 at 2–4. Plaintiff
asserts that at least two Defendants are residents of the Austin
Division of the Western District of Texas. ECF No. 4 at 3 (“Two
central Defendants, the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services (DFPS) and the Texas Department of State
Health Services, are headquartered in Austin, within the Western
District of Texas.”). For the purposes of this Order, the court
assumes, without deciding, that each Defendant’s address, as
listed in Plaintiff’s Complaint, correctly reflects their residency.
Accordingly, Plaintiff could have filed this lawsuit in the Austin
Division of the Western District of Texas.
After addressing whether the proposed destination venue is
one in which the lawsuit might have been brought, the court must
evaluate whether “the evidence demonstrates that the destination
venue is ‘clearly more convenient’ than the [plaintiff’s] chosen
venue.” In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th
625, 632 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315).
“[D]istrict courts have broad discretion in deciding motions to
Case 4:26-cv-02954 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
transfer[.]” Id. The moving party must “clearly establish good
cause for transfer based on convenience and justice” and “clearly
demonstrate[] the appropriateness of transfer.” Def. Distributed v.
Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2022).
Courts weigh four private-interest factors and four public-
interest factors to determine if the movant has met its burden. Def.
Distributed, 30 F.4th at 433. No single factor carries dispositive
weight. In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2023). The
four private-interest factors are: “(1) the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing
witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a
case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Def. Distributed, 30 F.4th
at 433–34. The public-interest factors are: “(1) the administrative
difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in
having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of
the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the
avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the
application of foreign law.” Id. at 435.
Plaintiff argues that the “interest of justice demands a
change of venue.” ECF No. 4 at 4. She asserts that she will not
receive a fair trial in Harris County because of local prejudice and
influence. Id. at 2. She alleges that she is the victim of a “scheme
by Harris County officials,” including state-court judges. Id.
at 2–3. Plaintiff states that one named Defendant, Tonya Rolland,
currently sits as a Justice on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Id.
at 3. Plaintiff asserts, erroneously, that the Fourteenth Court of
Appeals “directly oversees the district courts in the Houston
Division.” Id. On that basis, Plaintiff argues that litigating in
Houston “creates an unavoidable conflict of interest and an
appearance of impropriety that would taint any judgment.” Id.
Additionally, Plaintiff states that she has an active arrest warrant
Case 4:26-cv-02954 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
out of Harris County. Id. She argues that the warrant prevents her
from “safely travel[ing] to, attend[ing] hearings in, or otherwise
appear[ing] at the courthouse in the Houston Division.” Id.
Plaintiff’s arguments are not compelling. The Harris County
district courts, with which she takes issue, are state courts. The
instant lawsuit is before the federal court. And though Plaintiff
could have filed this lawsuit in the Ausitn Division of the Western
District of Texas, she chose to file here, in the Houston Division of
the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiff has not shown good cause
under the private- and public-interest factors. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 4, is DENIED
without prejudice.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on May 4, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02954 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6