Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 10, 2025

Stevens v. Eyster

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:25-cv-02439
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSection 1983
In one sentence

In Stevens v. Eyster, Judge Riordan transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because venue was proper there.

Who this affects

Dean Michael Stevens’s case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the order affects Stevens and the named defendants, C. David Eyster and others.

What happened

Dean Michael Stevens, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights case against C. David Eyster and others under a federal civil-rights law. The opinion states that the claim arose in Mendocino County.

The court explained that federal law generally allows a case to be filed where a substantial part of the events occurred. Mendocino County is in the Northern District of California, so the case was filed in the wrong federal district.

Judge Sean C. Riordan ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. The order addressed only the proper court location and did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stevens v. Eyster · No. 5:25-cv-02439
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
Mar. 10, 2025

Background

Dean Michael Stevens, identified in the order as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Venue

The court considered venue, meaning the proper federal district for the lawsuit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may generally be filed in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The order states that Stevens’s claim arose in Mendocino County. Because Mendocino County is in the Northern District of California, the court concluded that the action should have been filed there. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits a federal court to transfer a case filed in the wrong district when doing so serves the interests of justice.

Ruling

Judge Sean C. Riordan ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order resolved the venue issue only; it did not decide whether Stevens’s civil-rights claims were legally valid or whether the defendants were liable.

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.