Rollerson-Wright v. The Good State of Georgia et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NA’GUERIAN SIMONE 	: Civil No. 1:26-CV-480
ROLLERSON-WRIGHT, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
THE GOOD STATE 	:
OF GEORGIA, et al. 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. 	Background
This is a civil action filed by the
pro se plaintiff, Na’Guerian Simone
Rollerson-Wright, an inmate in the Macon State Prison in Georgia. 1
Rollerson-Wright filed this action against the State of Georgia, the
Georgia Department of Corrections, the state and federal judiciary in
Georgia, Georgia county courts, and the state and federal Bureaus of
Investigation. 2 	Rollerson-Wright’s 	complaint 	is 	almost 	completely
incomprehensible, containing ramblings of alleged stolen chiefdom and
1 Doc. 1.
2
Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00480-DFB Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
constitutional violations dating back to 1981.3 	The plaintiff alludes to
conduct related to an arrest for controlled substances at an unidentified
time, which he appears to claim was unlawful and due to false reports
from the Fulton County District Attorney. 4 	He also asserts that there is
a federal informant working within the prison system who gives false
information to the FBI. 5 	The plaintiff attempts to tie this conduct to
David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.6 	While he alleges violations of his
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, 7
the complaint is completely devoid of any actual legal claims or relief.
Along with the complaint, Rollerson-Wright filed a motion for leave
to proceed
in forma pauperis. 8 	After consideration, we will order that
this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia.
3
See e.g. Doc. 1-1 at 4-5 (“[T]he kidnapping of Mr. Na’guerian Simone’s
son and the child’s mother . . . constituted the legal and moral basis for
the 	occupation 	of 	Atlanta, 	then 	part 	of 	Mr. 	Na’Guerian 	Simone’s
princedom, now recognized as kingdom and chiefdom.”)
4
Id. at 9.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7 Doc. 1 at 6.
8 Doc. 2.
Case 1:26-cv-00480-DFB Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
II. 	Discussion
In federal civil actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) dictates that such
actions should be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is
located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may
otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial
district 	in 	which 	any 	defendant 	is 	subject 	to 	the 	court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.9
Here, 	it 	is 	not 	alleged 	that 	any 	defendant 	is 	a 	resident 	of
Pennsylvania. 	Additionally, the plaintiff fails to include any factual
allegations regarding where any of the alleged conduct occurred, let alone
that 	any 	of 	the 	alleged 	conduct 	occurred 	in 	the 	Middle 	District 	of
Pennsylvania. 	Instead, it appears that many of the defendants, and
possibly the conduct underlying the plaintiff’s claims, occurred in the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia. 	Thus, venue is not proper in this court.
9 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Case 1:26-cv-00480-DFB Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Finally, we note that “[a] motion to transfer venue involves a non-
dispositive pretrial matter, which a magistrate judge may determine
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).”10 	Accordingly, in the interest of
justice and to preserve the rights of the
pro se plaintiff, we will order this
case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia.
III. 	Order
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: 	March 5, 2026
10
	Silong v. U.S., 2006 WL 948048, at * n.1 (M.D. Fl. Apr. 12, 2006)
(citation omitted);
see also Jones v. Wetzel, 2013 WL 3381435, at *2 (M.D.
Pa. July 8, 2013) (collecting cases).
Case 1:26-cv-00480-DFB Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 4