Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 5, 2021

Barnes v. Barnes

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:21-cv-08804
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Antoine Deshawn Barnes v. Marcie Barnes, Judge Rogers transferred the civil-rights case to Northern California because venue was improper in Eastern California.

Who this affects

Antoine Deshawn Barnes's case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the defendants are affected because the case will be handled in the receiving district.

What happened

Antoine Deshawn Barnes v. Marcie Barnes, et al. is a civil-rights case filed by Barnes without a lawyer under federal civil-rights law and a related claim against federal officials. Barnes alleged that his rights were violated in Alameda County.

The court said the defendants did not reside in the Eastern District of California and that the alleged events occurred in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District. It therefore determined that the case was filed in the wrong district.

Under the federal venue law, Judge Yvonne Rogers ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The order transferred the case; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Barnes v. Barnes · No. 4:21-cv-08804
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Nov. 5, 2021

Background

Antoine Deshawn Barnes filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He alleged that a violation of his rights occurred in Alameda County.

Venue analysis

The federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), generally permits a civil action to be filed where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court stated that the defendants did not reside in the Eastern District of California and that Alameda County is in the Northern District of California.

Disposition

The court concluded that the claims should have been filed in the Northern District. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district in the interest of justice. The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not reach the merits of Barnes’s civil-rights claims.

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.