Favor v. Stevenson-Bridges
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-00419
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Favor v. Stevenson-Bridges, Judge Freeman transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights case to the Central District of California because venue was improper in Northern California.
Brandon Alexander Favor and the two named defendants are affected because the entire case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California, and pending motions were terminated.
What happened
Brandon Alexander Favor, a state prisoner, sued two individuals under a federal civil-rights law. The court had dismissed his original complaint but allowed him to amend it.
Favor’s amended complaint described events in Los Angeles County and asserted a right to effective assistance of counsel, but it did not explain what the named defendants had done. The court concluded that the case belonged in the Central District of California rather than the Northern District of California.
Judge Freeman transferred the entire case to the Central District of California under the federal venue statute and directed the clerk to terminate pending motions. The court did not decide whether Favor’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Favor v. Stevenson-Bridges · No. 5:19-cv-00419
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Brandon Alexander Favor, identified as a state prisoner at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two individuals. The court had dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to file an amended complaint that addressed several deficiencies.
The court had previously questioned whether Monee Stevenson and Marcia Stevenson-Bridges acted under state authority or were private individuals, whether the Northern District of California was the proper venue, and whether Favor’s damages claim was barred by a rule concerning claims that would undermine a conviction. Favor then filed an amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
The court conducted the required preliminary screening of the amended complaint. Screening is an initial review of a prisoner’s claims to determine whether they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority.
Favor stated that the alleged violation occurred at a county jail in Los Angeles. Under the federal venue rules, the court concluded that the relevant events occurred in Los Angeles County, which is within the Central District of California’s Western Division, not the Northern District of California.
The court also found that Favor’s lengthy account of events in Los Angeles on November 8, 2004, did not identify facts involving either named defendant. As a result, the amended complaint did not give the defendants fair notice of the claims as required by the federal pleading rule requiring a short and plain statement. Although that defect could support dismissal, the court chose to transfer the case in the interest of justice rather than dismiss it.
Disposition
The case was TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Western Division of that court in Los Angeles. The order did not decide the merits of Favor’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.