Cite as Evans v. Higgins, 1989 WL 7365 (D.D.C. 1989)

             Creed M. EVANS, II, dba Onyx Arms, Plaintiff,

                                  v.

               Stephen E. HIGGINS, Director, Defendant.

                      Civ. A. No. 88-0275 (RCL).

          United States District Court, District of Columbia.

                            Jan. 24, 1989.

                         MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

      LAMBERTH, District Judge.

      Plaintiff, a vendor of firearms parts with his principal place
of business in Montana, seeks a declaratory judgment that certain
items do not constitute a combination of parts from which a machine
gun can be assembled.

      Plaintiff alleges that an affidavit of an agent of the U.S.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) on which a search
warrant was based was false, and that a search thereafter conducted
(in Montana) was without probable cause and that plaintiff's
property was improperly seized.  Plaintiff alleges damages in
disruption of his business and foregone profits, and also alleges
violation of certain first amendment rights.

      Plaintiff has now been indicted and is apparently pending
trial in Montana.

      The Defendant, the Director of ATF, has moved, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 1404(a), to transfer this action to the United
States District Court for the District of Montana, for the
convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice.  It is
undisputed that this case could have been brought in the District
of Montana, and that the defendant was subject to process in the
District of Montana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(e).

      Plaintiff concedes in his opposition to defendant's motion
that this civil case will have to be held in abeyance pending the
disposition of the criminal case in Montana.  He does not comment
on why this court should determine the collateral consequences of
decisions made in the pending criminal case in Montana, rather than
allowing the District Court in Montana to make such decisions.    
Plaintiff complains that some potential witnesses are in this
district at ATF headquarters, and that plaintiff has an expert
witness in this district.  But plaintiff overlooks the fact that
the potential witnesses regarding what items plaintiff possessed
are not in this district.  Moreover, defendant properly points out
that he is seeking transfer to the forum where plaintiff resides
and conducts his business, where the pending criminal case is
located, and where the government officials most familiar with the
pending charges against the plaintiff are all located.  Moreover,
the ATF's interpretation of law which is at issue here occurred
with the execution of the affidavit in Montana seeking a search
warrant, and there is no reason to bring this localized controversy
to this district when the government is proceeding criminally on
the same legal interpretation in the United States District Court
for the District of Montana.

      Accordingly, defendant's motion to transfer is GRANTED, and 
this case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of Montana.

      SO ORDERED.