Lindblad v. Lunny

Background

Robert Lindblad filed a complaint and a motion to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that he was proceeding without counsel. The defendants were identified as Officer Lunny of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and the County of San Mateo.

Venue Analysis

Venue is the legally proper federal court location for a case. The court explained that venue generally may be based on where a defendant resides, 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 determined that neither defendant was a resident of the Eastern District of California. It also found that the complaint did not establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred in that district. The court noted Lindblad’s statement that he believed he could not file a lawsuit at the site of the incident in San Mateo County, but found that statement insufficient to establish venue in the Eastern District.

The court further found that a substantial portion of the alleged events occurred in Millbrae and Burlingame, which are in the Northern District of California, while other alleged events occurred in Colorado. Even if venue could have existed in the Eastern District, the court found the Northern District more appropriate in the interest of justice.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action, including the pending motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), or alternatively under § 1404(a). The Clerk of Court was ordered to close the Eastern District case. The court expressly stated that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of Lindblad’s claims and directed future filings or inquiries to the Northern District of California. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney issued the order.