Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 5, 2023

Sekona v. Gutierrez

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:23-cv-06311
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Etuate Sekona v. Gutierrez, Judge Austin transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because venue was improper in the Eastern District.

Who this affects

Etuate Sekona’s case was moved from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the order did not resolve the underlying claim against Gutierrez.

What happened

Etuate Sekona, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights case against Gutierrez under a federal civil-rights statute. The case was filed in the Eastern District of California.

The court explained that the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California, and that none of the defendants lived in the Eastern District. It therefore concluded that the case had been filed in the wrong federal district.

Judge Gary S. Austin ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California. The order addressed the proper location for the case and did not decide the underlying civil-rights claim.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sekona v. Gutierrez · No. 4:23-cv-06311
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Dec. 5, 2023

Background

Etuate Sekona, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Gutierrez. The opinion states that the action was filed in the Eastern District of California.

Venue analysis

The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute generally permits a civil case to be filed 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 authority.

The court found that none of the defendants resided in the Eastern District of California. It also found that the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. The court therefore determined that the case should have been filed in the Northern District of California.

Ruling

The court ordered the matter transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a case filed in the wrong district when doing so serves the interests of justice. Judge Gary S. Austin did not rule on the merits of Sekona’s civil-rights claim.

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.