UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DR. SHANNON “SJ” JOSLIN,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 26 - 576 (SLS) v. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dr. Shannon “SJ” Joslin is a wildlife biologist who was employed by the National Park
Service (NPS) at Yosemite National Park for more than four years before their termination. 1 In
May 2025, Dr. Joslin and a group of fellow climbers displayed a large transgender pride flag on
Yosemite’s iconic El Capitan rock formation for about two hours. Disheartened by recent upticks
in attacks on the LGBTQ+ community and transgender people in particular, the group wanted to
send a message that transgender people are welcome outdoors. Dr. Joslin’s participation in the flag
display occurred on their personal time and not during duty hours. The day after the demonstration,
the Yosemite Superintendent announced a new ban on flags at Yosemite, including El Capitan. A
few days later, the NPS and the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into
Dr. Joslin’s participation in the flag display. And shortly after that, the NPS fired Dr. Joslin.
Dr. Joslin filed this lawsuit alleging that their termination and criminal investigation
violates the First Amendment and the Privacy Act. They assert claims against the NPS, the
Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
1 Dr. Joslin “prefers they/them pronouns.” Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 1. Eastern District of California, as well as against the individual officials that head those agencies.
Shortly after filing suit, Dr. Joslin sought a preliminary injunction reinstating them to their position
as a wildlife biologist at Yosemite and forbidding the Defendants from taking any further criminal
investigative or enforcement action against them for their role in the flag display. In response, the
Defendants moved to transfer this case to the Eastern District of California. The Court now grants
the Defendants’ motion.
The Government’s alleged conduct in this matter is disturbing and appears to implicate
fundamental First Amendment issues that bear on the free speech rights of park rangers and federal
employees across our country. But this case nevertheless has no meaningful connection to this
District. Indeed, the Complaint includes no allegations about specific events, actions, or decisions
that occurred here. Rather, the events at issue all occurred in the Eastern District of California.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds that transfer to the Eastern District of California is
appropriate.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Dr. Joslin is a wildlife biologist and lifelong climber who resides in El Portal, California.
Compl. ¶¶ 1, 11, 37, ECF No. 1. They hold a bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. in genetics from the
University of California, Davis. Compl. ¶ 37. Dr. Joslin was first hired by Yosemite National Park
as a wildlife biologist in March 2021, and served in that position for roughly four and a half years.
Compl. ¶¶ 38–39. During that time, Dr. Joslin managed Yosemite’s bat program as well as the
“terrestrial wildlife data for all research projects at Yosemite.” Compl. ¶ 39. They received
“universally positive performance reviews” and were “never subject to disciplinary action” before
the events at issue. Id.
2 In May 2025, following an “uptick in attacks on transgender and LGBTQ people,”
Dr. Joslin approached a group of fellow climbers, including two fellow NPS employees, about
“mak[ing] a statement in support of trans people.” Compl. ¶¶ 40–42. Their idea was to rig a “large
trans pride flag” on Yosemite’s iconic El Capitan rock face to convey the message that “trans is
natural,” and to “make sure that trans people know they’re welcome outdoors.” Id.
In the weeks leading up to the event, Dr. Joslin and other organizers made “weekend trips
to the site to stake out the technical logistics of fixing a sizable flag to the rock face.” Compl. ¶ 43.
Dr. Joslin and the other NPS employees in the group also consulted with coworkers who had
attended an NPS-facilitated First Amendment training the year before. Compl. ¶ 44. That training
was offered after Yosemite officials had improperly “restricted the activities allowed at the park’s
2024 Pride parade.” Compl. ¶ 36. The employees who had attended the training assured Dr. Joslin
that “so long as they were not on duty when participating” in the flag display “they would have
their full First Amendment rights.” Compl. ¶ 44. Dr. Joslin followed this advice to the letter,
ensuring that all their involvement in planning and executing the flag display was “done on their
own time.” Compl. ¶¶ 43, 53.
On the morning of May 20, 2025, Dr. Joslin and the other group members carried out their
plan, unfurling their trans pride flag about one-third of the way up El Capitan’s cliff face. Compl.
¶ 47. They flew the flag for approximately two hours before removing it. Compl. ¶¶ 49–51. Later
that day, the group issued a press release that quoted Dr. Joslin but did not identify them as a
Yosemite employee. Compl. ¶ 52. In the immediate aftermath of the event, Dr. Joslin and the other
organizers received “an outpouring of support for their display from colleagues, members of the
Yosemite climbing community, and members of the LGBTQ+ community, in addition to the
public writ large.” Compl. ¶ 54.
3 For Dr. Joslin, the celebratory atmosphere surrounding the event was short-lived. The day
after the flag display, the Yosemite Superintendent announced that the Yosemite Superintendent’s
Compendium—essentially, the park’s rulebook governing permit requirements, closures,
restrictions, and the like—had been updated to ban the display of large flags in the park’s
wilderness areas. Compl. ¶ 55. The plain terms of the ban applied to the trans pride flag displayed
by Dr. Joslin’s group. Compl. ¶¶ 55, 58. And while the Compendium update was electronically
signed on May 21, 2025, it purported to have been dated May 20, 2025, the day of the flag display.
Compl. ¶ 57.
A few days later, the NPS informed Dr. Joslin that they were “under investigation.” Compl.
¶ 60. In subsequent interviews, NPS representatives confirmed to Dr. Joslin that they were under
criminal investigation and that the “investigation was the result of [Dr. Joslin’s] participation” in
the flag display, which “NPS claimed was a demonstration that constituted a violation of the park
rules.” Compl. ¶¶ 61–62. Not long after, Dr. Joslin was summoned to a meeting with the
Yosemite’s acting deputy superintendent who handed her a “Notice of Termination.” Compl. ¶ 63.
The Notice, dated July 30, 2025, stated that Dr. Joslin had “failed to demonstrate acceptable
conduct” when they “participated in a small group demonstration in an area outside the designated
protest and demonstration area without a permit as required by 36 CFR 2.51[.]” Compl. ¶ 64.
As a result of their termination, Dr. Joslin “has faced—and continues to face—medical,
financial, personal, and professional harm.” Compl. ¶ 66. They have lost their income and benefits.
Id. They have suffered disruptions to their healthcare coverage just as the stress of their termination
has increased their need for care. Id. And they have been thrown into an unexpected and
challenging job search. Id. Indeed, “the only position for [Dr. Joslin’s] skills in their current
4 location is with NPS,” and they thus have incurred and will continue to incur expenses related to
searching for new jobs and potentially relocating. Compl. ¶ 67.
The Defendants’ public statements since Dr. Joslin’s termination have also “made clear
their intent to investigate Dr. Joslin to the fullest extent possible” and have made Dr. Joslin
“concerned about pending administrative, disciplinary, civil, and criminal proceedings, including
a fine, imprisonment, or both.” Compl. ¶ 65. The Defendants have publicly stated that the NPS
and the Department of Justice are working together to investigate Dr. Joslin and other individuals
involved in the flag display, and that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of
California is evaluating possible criminal charges. Compl. ¶ 65 n.47.
B. Procedural Background
Dr. Joslin filed this lawsuit in tandem with a motion for preliminary injunction on February
23, 2026, bringing claims under the First Amendment, the Privacy Act, and the Declaratory
Judgment Act. Compl.; Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 3. The Defendants moved to transfer venue on
March 3, 2026. Defs.’ Mot. Transfer (Mot.), ECF No. 8. The motion to transfer is now ripe for
review. Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 9, Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 10.
LEGAL STANDARD
“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). Section 1404(a)
is intended “to prevent the waste ‘of time, energy and money’ and ‘to protect litigants, witnesses,
and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.’” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S.
612, 616 (1964) (quoting Cont’l Grain Co. v. The FBL–585, 364 U.S. 19, 26–27 (1960)).
“The threshold question under section 1404(a) is whether the action ‘might have been
brought’ in the transferee district.” SEC v. RPM Int’l, Inc., 223 F. Supp. 3d 110, 114 (D.D.C.
5 2016). “After establishing that the threshold requirement has been met, the Court ‘must balance
case-specific factors which include the private interests of the parties as well as public interests
such as efficiency and fairness.’” Id. at 114–15 (quoting The Wilderness Soc’y v. Babbitt, 104 F.
Supp. 2d 10, 12 (D.D.C. 2000)). The private-interest factors include: “(1) the plaintiff’s choice of
forum; (2) the defendant’s choice of forum; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the
convenience of the parties; (5) the convenience of the witnesses; and (6) the ease of access to
sources of proof.” Tower Lab’ys, Ltd. v. Lush Cosms. Ltd., 285 F. Supp. 3d 321, 325 (D.D.C. 2018)
(quoting Douglas v. Chariots for Hire, 918 F. Supp. 2d 24, 31 (D.D.C. 2013)). The public-interest
factors include: “(1) the transferee’s familiarity with the governing laws; (2) the relative
congestion of the calendar of the transferor and transferee courts; and (3) the local interest in
having local controversies decided at home.” Id. (quoting Douglas, 918 F. Supp. 2d at 31). “The
burden is on the moving party to establish that transfer is proper.” Id. (quoting Douglas, 918 F.
Supp. 2d at 31).
DISCUSSION
The Defendants seek to transfer this case to the Eastern District of California. The Court
agrees that transfer to that district is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
To begin, the Parties agree that Dr. Joslin could have brought this lawsuit in the Eastern
District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see Mot. 3–4; Opp’n 4. A civil action against an officer
or employee of the United States or an agency of the United States may be brought “in any judicial
district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, . . . or (C) the plaintiff resides[.]” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(e)(1). Here, all three venue hooks appear to be satisfied. At a minimum, there is no dispute
that Dr. Joslin resides in the Eastern District of California. Compl. ¶ 11. Accordingly, the Court
turns to the private- and public-interest factors.
6 1. Private Interest Factors
The Plaintiff’s choice of forum. “Courts ordinarily accord significant deference to a
plaintiff’s choice of forum, only disturbing that choice if the balance of convenience is strongly in
favor of the defendant.” SEC v. Musk, No. 25-cv-105, 2025 WL 2803858, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 2,
2025) (cleaned up). That deference is diminished, however, where the Plaintiff’s chosen forum
“has no meaningful ties to the controversy and no particular interest in the parties or subject
matter.” Wilderness Workshop v. Harrell, 676 F. Supp. 3d 1, 5–6 (D.D.C. 2023) (quoting Greater
Yellowstone Coal. v. Bosworth, 180 F. Supp. 2d 124, 128 (D.D.C. 2001)). “Thus, the degree of
deference accorded to plaintiffs’ choice of forum depends on the existence of a connection between
the underlying case and the district.” Musk, 2025 WL 2803858, at *2 (cleaned up). Some courts in
this District have also given less deference to a plaintiff’s chosen forum when it “is not the
plaintiff’s home forum.” Sallyport Glob. Servs., Ltd. v. Arkel Int’l, LLC, 78 F. Supp. 3d 369, 373
(D.D.C. 2015) (collecting cases).
Here, this District is not Dr. Joslin’s home forum. And the connection between this District
and Dr. Joslin’s claims is not so robust as to merit significant deference. It is true that three of the
Defendant agencies and their leaders are in Washington, D.C. But that on its own is not enough to
create a meaningful nexus. See Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
(“Courts in this circuit must . . . guard against the danger that a plaintiff might manufacture venue
in the District of Columbia . . . [b]y naming high government officials as defendants” and
“bring[ing] a suit here that properly should be pursued elsewhere.”) At this early stage, it is not
clear that any agency personnel or agency leaders took any actions or made any decisions in this
District that are relevant to Dr. Joslin’s claims.
7 While Dr. Joslin contends that the Defendants have not “outright deni[ed]” the “plausible
assertion ‘that ultimate decisions about Dr. Joslin’s case were made by high level officials in
Washington, D.C.,’” Opp’n 5–6, Dr. Joslin did not make that assertion in their Complaint. Indeed,
the Complaint does not include any allegations about specific events, actions, or decisions that
occurred in this District and instead relies on inference to suggest the involvement of higher-level
agency personnel. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 50, 60 (describing the “sharp” change between the support
Dr. Joslin initially received from local NPS employees following the display and the
communications that came later). While such reliance on inference is permissible to plausibly state
a claim, it does not meaningfully tie Dr. Joslin’s claims to this forum. See Intrepid Potash-New
Mexico, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 669 F. Supp. 2d 88, 96 (D.D.C. 2009) (“[E]ven when a
federal agency has had some role in formulating the policy that was applied by a local agency
office, this does not alone support venue when the claims are centered on the decision of a local
agency office.”). At bottom, Dr. Joslin’s Complaint alleges “identifiable relevant events occurring
in the [Eastern District of California] and virtually none in this district.” Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F.
Supp. 2d 76, 80 (D.D.C. 2009). Under such circumstances, Dr. Joslin’s choice of forum
“commands diminished deference,” id., and carries little weight in the transfer analysis.
The Defendant’s choice of forum. “While a defendant’s choice of forum is a consideration
when deciding a § 1404(a) motion, it is not ordinarily entitled to deference.” Correll v. U.S. Pat.
& Trademark Off., No. 25-cv-1169, 2026 WL 310024, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2026) (quoting Tower
Lab’ys, 285 F. Supp. 3d at 326). Here, the Defendants “have not proffered any basis to conclude
that their choice of forum is entitled to special deference, meaning that this factor is neutral.” Id.
8 Whether the claim arose elsewhere. “Transfer is favored when the material events that form
the factual predicate of the plaintiff’s claim did not occur in the plaintiff’s chosen forum.” Id.
(cleaned up). That is the case here.
Dr. Joslin was employed by NPS in the Eastern District of California. Dr. Joslin’s
involvement in the flag display occurred in the Eastern District of California. Dr. Joslin’s
termination was carried out by NPS personnel in the Eastern District of California. And it appears
that the Government’s ongoing investigation of Dr. Joslin is being carried out by NPS and
Department of Justice personnel in the Eastern District of California. Indeed, every individual
specifically identified in the Complaint as having taken or witnessed an action relevant to
Dr. Joslin’s claims appears to have done so in the Eastern District of California. By contrast, the
connections that the Complaint draws between Dr. Joslin’s claims and events in this District are
not substantiated. Dr. Joslin may well flesh out those connections with time and discovery. But for
now, Dr. Joslin’s claims are undeniably rooted in the Eastern District of California. This factor
thus weighs heavily in favor of transfer.
The convenience of the parties. Neither side argues that litigating in this District or in the
Eastern District of California would pose substantial inconveniences for the Parties. See Mot. 8;
Opp’n 7–8. This factor is therefore neutral.
The convenience of the witnesses. Section 1404(a) of Title 28 says simply that “the
convenience of . . . witnesses” is a relevant consideration to whether transfer is appropriate. Musk,
2025 WL 2803858, at *5. Some courts in this District have interpreted this factor as only relevant
when witnesses are unavailable for trial in one of the venues under consideration. Id. (collecting
cases). Other courts have not adopted that “availability-based limitation.” Id. (collecting cases).
Here, the Defendants acknowledge the existence of this potential limitation, see Mot. 4, and
9 Dr. Joslin insists that it must apply, Opp’n 7. Ultimately, however, the application of the potential
limitation is inconsequential as “neither Party’s representations . . . provide a basis for the Court
to weigh this factor heavily.” Musk, 2025 WL 2803858, at *5.
“To make a strong showing on this factor, [a] party must specify what a nonresident witness
will testify to, the importance of the testimony to the issues in this case, and whether that witness
is willing to travel to a foreign jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). The Defendants argue that “most of
the witnesses” in this case likely live in California. Mot. 8. This includes the other climbers who
participated in the flag display, Dr. Joslin’s NPS colleagues and superiors, and any doctors who
might testify regarding Dr. Joslin’s alleged harm related to medical expenses. Id. Accordingly, the
Defendants assert that it would be “more convenient for these witnesses to appear in court in . . .
the Eastern District of California than in [this] District.” Id. And that intuitively seems true. But
they proffer no information suggesting that any of these witnesses would be “[un]willing to travel
to [this] jurisdiction.” See Sheffer, 873 F. Supp. 2d at 378 (quoting Thayer/Patricof Educ. Funding,
L.L.C. v. Pryor Res., Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 21, 33 (D.D.C. 2002)).
Dr. Joslin, on the other hand, does not argue that litigating in the Eastern District of
California is likely to inconvenience any witnesses. Opp’n 7–8. Instead, they simply note that the
convenience of the witnesses “poses no obstacle” to litigation in this District. Id.
Ultimately, the Court gives a slight edge to the Defendants on this factor—but not such a
heavy benefit that it is dispositive to the Court’s analysis.
The ease of access to sources of proof. This factor plays out much like the preceding one.
Dr. Joslin notes that their decision to file suit here was necessarily based on a determination that
“any necessary witnesses and evidence” needed to prove their claims would be available in this
forum. Opp’n 7. Arguing in the other direction, the Defendants suggest that Dr. Joslin or
10 Dr. Joslin’s medical providers may have records located in California. Mot. 8. But bringing that
sort of documentary evidence to this forum seems like an easily surmountable hurdle. Musk, 2025
WL 2803858, at *5. The same would seem to be true of any other potentially relevant documentary
evidence (e.g., personnel files, Yosemite park policies, etc.). This factor, too, is neutral.
2. Public Interest Factors
The transferee’s familiarity with the governing laws. Dr. Joslin’s claims are based on the
Constitution, the Privacy Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Both sides agree that courts in
the Eastern District of California and this District are presumed to be equally familiar with these
laws. Mot. 11; Opp’n 8; see also Correll, 2026 WL 310024, at *3 (“All federal courts are presumed
equally familiar with the federal statutes and constitutional provisions at issue here.” (cleaned up)).
Thus, this factor is also neutral.
The relative congestion of the transferor and transferee courts. “To assess this factor,
courts in this District have considered statistics including the average number of cases pending per
judgeship and the median times from filing to disposition or trial.” Musk, 2025 WL 2803858, at
*6. The judiciary’s most recent data indicates that the average number of cases pending per
judgeship in this District is 464, compared to 1392 in the Eastern District of California. See Federal
Court Management Statistics, U.S. Courts (Dec. 31, 2025),
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/fcms_na_distprofile1231.2025.pdf
[https://perma.cc/83M5-5N8R]. The median time from filing to disposition is 7.3 months here
compared to 8.4 months there. Id. Lastly, the median time from filing to trial in civil cases is 52.1
months here compared to 64.6 months in the Eastern District. Id. Overall, this data suggests that
the Eastern District of California is relatively more congested than this District. Accordingly, the
Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer.
11 The local interest in having local controversies decided at home. This final public interest
factor “seeks to ensure that ‘concerned members’ of the population affected by a case ‘can engage
with the proceedings.’” Correll, 2026 WL 310024, at *4 (quoting Wilderness Workshop, 676 F.
Supp. 3d at 7). While “[e]ach state has an interest in redressing the harms of its citizens . . . when
national significance attaches to a controversy, local interest can sometimes be diminished.” Musk,
2025 WL 2803858, at *6 (cleaned up).
Dr. Joslin argues that this case involves a controversy to which national significance has
attached. Opp’n 9–10. They assert that “the impact of Defendants’ ability to implement and then
selectively enforce speech restrictions extend far beyond the boundaries of Yosemite, impacting
at least the more than 20,000 employees who work in the more than 85 million acres [of National
Parks] in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.” Id. 10–11.
The Court does not disagree that resolution of Dr. Joslin’s claims may have implications for the
First Amendment rights of all NPS employees. Nor does it dispute that the free speech rights of
federal employees are of national concern. But that does not change the fact that the heart of this
case is the Defendants’ alleged campaign “to selectively punish Dr. Joslin for disfavored speech.”
Opp’n 9. And where “the crux of the suit is the implementation of national policies as to plaintiff,
the question is where the implementation of the policy occurred.” Hale v. Bureau of Prisons, 2023
WL 2755413, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2023) (cleaned up). Here, as already discussed, that
implementation appears to have occurred in the Eastern District of California. This factor thus
weighs heavily in favor of transfer. 2
2 Dr. Joslin argues that an additional public interest consideration weighing against transfer is that the Defendants may be “forum shopping” and attempting to avoid case law in the D.C. Circuit that is more favorable to Dr. Joslin’s Privacy Act Claims. Opp’n 11; see also Opp’n 1 (asserting that transfer will allow the Defendants “to take advantage of Ninth Circuit law precluding Privacy Act claims by federal workers like Dr. Joslin”). This argument is unpersuasive. If anything, given the
12 * * *
Balancing the above factors, the Court concludes that the Defendants have met their burden
of showing that discretionary transfer of this case to the Eastern District of California is warranted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Most notably, the identifiable material events that give rise to Dr. Joslin’s
claims all occurred in the Eastern District of California. By contrast, any factual linkages to this
District have yet to be fleshed out. It is thus no surprise that nearly every factor in the analysis
either weighs in favor of transfer or is neutral. The only factor that points in the other direction is
the relative congestion of the two Districts, but with other factors weighing strongly in favor of
transfer, “congestion alone is not sufficient reason” to keep the case in this forum. Starnes v.
McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Transfer, ECF No. 8. A
separate order will issue.
SPARKLE L. SOOKNANAN United States District Judge
Date: March 11, 2026
attenuated connection between Dr. Joslin’s claims and this District, the decision to file suit here may itself have been motivated by a desire to avoid Ninth Circuit precedent that will “effectively extinguish Dr. Joslin’s Privacy Act claims.” Opp’n 1. The Court does not fault Dr. Joslin for that decision—venue is proper in this District—but neither does it ascribe substantial weight to that decision as a reason to keep the case here. See Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 304 F. Supp. 3d 56, 59, 65 n.5 (D.D.C. 2018) (granting motion to transfer where plaintiff who filed lawsuit “hundreds of miles from home . . . appear[ed] motivated by its desire to leverage” D.C. Circuit case law); see also M & N Plastics, Inc. v. Sebelius, 997 F. Supp. 2d 19, 25–26 (D.D.C. 2013) (granting motion to transfer where plaintiffs’ decision to file “in this district instead of their home district was motivated by an attempt to take advantage of favorable precedent here” and collecting cases employing analogous reasoning).