Baker v. County of Alameda
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:23-cv-03041
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bobby Baker v. County of Alameda, Judge Cousins transferred Baker’s civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because the claim arose in Alameda County.
Bobby Baker’s lawsuit against the County of Alameda and the other named defendants was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the court did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Bobby Baker, who was representing himself while detained at Coalinga State Hospital, filed a civil-rights lawsuit against the County of Alameda and others in the Eastern District of California. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court concluded that the claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California. Under the federal venue law, that district was the proper place for the case.
The order transferred the case to the Northern District of California. The order is signed by a United States magistrate judge; the supplied case metadata identifies Judge Nathanael Cousins.
The detailed version
- Baker v. County of Alameda · No. 5:23-cv-03041
- Nathanael Cousins
- June 20, 2023
Background
Bobby Baker filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that Baker was a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital and was representing himself. The defendants are captioned as the County of Alameda and others.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the federal venue statute. That statute permits a civil action to be filed in certain districts, including one where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The court found that Baker’s claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California. It therefore concluded that the case should have been filed there rather than in the Eastern District of California.
Ruling
The court transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The opinion does not decide the underlying civil-rights claims. The supplied metadata identifies Nathanael Cousins as the judge, but the reproduced signature line appears to identify a different United States magistrate judge, so the judge attribution should be reviewed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.