Caryl Danita Carby v. Barrack Hussein Obama

1 Apr 21, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON CARYL DANITA CARBY, NO. 2:26-CV-0119-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. CHANGE VENUE BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, 11 Defendant.

12 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 3).

14 Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 11, 2026 and filed a motion to change venue the next day. Plaintiff requests a change in venue because the public is talking about Plaintiff’s litigation even though Plaintiff asserts it was never publicized. However, Plaintiff does not say where the case should be transferred to.

19 A pro se litigant’s pleadings are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

However, pro se litigants are still expected to comply with the same rules of 2|| procedure that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). The local rules require a moving party to “set forth supporting factual 4|| assertions and legal authority” in support of a motion. LCivR 7(b)(1).

5 Here, Plaintiff's motion fails to cite to the applicable facts and legal 6|| authority as required under the local rules. And as stated, Plaintiff does not even 7\| say where the action should be transferred to.

8 || ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.

10 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish a 11]| copy to Plaintiff 12 DATED April 21, 2026.

<> United States District Judge