Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 16, 2024

Bunn v. Robertson

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:24-cv-06541
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Bunn v. Robertson, Judge Delaney transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because venue was improper in the Eastern District.

Who this affects

Gary Lamont Bunn, Jr.’s civil-rights case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the opinion does not decide the claims against James Robertson or the other defendants.

What happened

In Bunn v. Robertson, Gary Lamont Bunn, Jr., a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit against James Robertson and others under a federal civil-rights law. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court explained that federal law generally requires a case to be filed where a defendant resides or where the events underlying the claim occurred. The opinion states that the defendants were located in Del Norte County and that the claim arose there, within the Northern District of California, rather than the Eastern District of California.

The court transferred the case to the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. Judge Carolyn K. Delaney signed the order; the court did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bunn v. Robertson · No. 4:24-cv-06541
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
Sept. 16, 2024

Background

Gary Lamont Bunn, Jr. filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and proceeded without a lawyer. He also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Venue analysis

The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute identifies districts where a civil action may be filed, including a district where a defendant resides when the statutory conditions are met, or a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

The court stated that the defendants were located in Del Norte County and that the claim arose there. Del Norte County is in the Northern District of California. The court therefore concluded that the action should have been filed in that district rather than in the Eastern District of California.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district when doing so serves the interest of justice. The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order addressed venue only and did not decide the merits of Bunn’s civil-rights claims. Carolyn K. Delaney, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.