Dobane v. Napolitano
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Dobane v. State of New Jersey: Judge Swain transferred the case to New Jersey because the alleged events occurred there, without deciding the claims.
Bras Dobane’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey court, rather than the transferring court, will decide whether he may proceed without prepaying fees; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Dobane v. State of New Jersey, Bras Dobane, also known as Brian L. Taylor, sued New Jersey judges and court administrators over events connected to court proceedings in Essex County, New Jersey. He said an adjournment was denied after he requested one because of his disability.
The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue based on where the events occurred. Because the relevant events took place in New Jersey, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the transfer and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. She did not decide whether Dobane’s claims were legally valid, and she left any decision about proceeding without paying filing fees to the New Jersey court.
The detailed version
- Dobane v. Napolitano · No. 1:25-cv-06733
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
Bras Dobane, also known as Brian L. Taylor, proceeded without a lawyer. He resides in South Orange, New Jersey, and asserted claims arising from his interactions with the court system in Essex County, New Jersey, in 2023. He sued the State of New Jersey; New Jersey Superior Court Judges Robert H. Gardner and Sheila A. Venable; and Assistant Trial Court Administrator John Napolitano, Chief Judiciary EEO/AA Officer Tonya N. Hopson, and Administrative Director Glenn A. Grant.
Dobane alleged that, on August 21, 2023, he needed an adjournment of a New Jersey court appearance because of his disability, but the adjournment was denied. He claimed that the defendants violated his rights in connection with proceedings in Essex County, which is in the District of New Jersey.
Venue analysis
The court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It explained that venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
The court stated that venue based on defendants’ residence would be proper in the Southern District of New York only if all defendants resided in New York. It further stated that venue in the Southern District of New York did not appear proper based on the location of the events. Because the events underlying Dobane’s claims occurred in New Jersey, venue was proper in the District of New Jersey.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, and a summons was not issued from that court. The court said that the transferee court would decide whether Dobane could proceed without prepaying fees.
The court did not rule on the merits of Dobane’s claims. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the transfer order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.