Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08058/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08058-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARWIN CRABTREE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-08058-JD 

ORDER RE TRANSFER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 16

Plaintiff Darwin Crabtree is a resident of Butte County and sues the county and its officers

for violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. 

No. 8, Ex. 1 at 2. He alleges that he was maliciously prosecuted for sexual abuse of his children 

by the Butte County District Attorney’s Office on the basis of false accusations coerced by the 

Butte County Alcohol and Drug Services. He was convicted by a Butte County jury in Superior 

Court, incarcerated for 9 years, and required to register as a sex offender for 17 more years, after 

which his conviction was vacated. Butte County is located in the Eastern District of California. 

The case was initially assigned to a magistrate judge, who ordered Crabtree to show cause 

why the case should not be transferred to the Eastern District. Dkt. No. 6. Crabtree filed a 

response, but also declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, which caused the case to be reassigned to 

the Court. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 10. Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper 

venue, or in the alternative for transfer under either 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Dkt. No. 16. 

The Court finds the motion suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and vacates the hearing that was set for April 2, 2020. The case is 

transferred to the Eastern District of California. 

Case 3:19-cv-08058-JD Document 24 Filed 03/28/20 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

The facts about this case’s ties to Butte County are not in dispute. The parties also agree 

that the Eastern District is a proper venue. Dkt. No. 21 at 15 (plaintiff); Dkt. No. 16-1 at 4-5

(defendants). They disagree on whether venue is proper and convenient in this District, and what 

the consequence should be if Crabtree should have sued elsewhere. 

Dismissal is not warranted under Section 1404 or Section 1406 for inconvenient or 

improper venue. The relevant standard for both provisions is substantially the same. As the 

Supreme Court recently recognized in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, “within the 

federal court system, when venue is laid in the wrong district, or when the plaintiff chooses an 

inconvenient forum, transfer rather than dismissal is ordinarily ordered if ‘in the interest of 

justice.’” 140 S. Ct. 582, 590 n.3 (2020) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406); see also PHH 

Mortg. Corp. v. Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder, & Weiss, LLP, Case No. 15-cv-04711-JD, 2016 

WL 1588270, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2016) (reaching same result under Sections 1404 and 

1406). That standard is amply met in this case because Crabtree represents that his claims would 

be time-barred if the case were dismissed. Dkt. No. 21 at 15; see PHH Mortg. Corp., 2016 WL 

1588270, at *2 (recognizing that “case might be time-barred if dismissed” weighs “in favor of 

transfer”). A transfer, and not a dismissal, is the right result here. 

Transfer is appropriate because Crabtree’s claims accrued in Butte County. The 

allegations in the complaint tell a harrowing story of Crabtree’s wrongful conviction in that county 

on charges that he sexually abused his children. His conviction was vacated after evidence came 

to light that key accusations against him were coerced and fabricated by the Butte County District 

Attorney’s Office and employees of Butte County Alcohol and Drug Services. These events all 

took place in Butte County. Crabtree says he has “spent more than 25 years living a nightmare,” 

and has sued Butte County and individuals who reside there to redress his injuries. See generally 

Dkt. No. 1. 

The factual allegations in the complaint are detailed and compelling. It may well be that 

Crabtree has a good claim to prosecute. But the case belongs in the Eastern District of California, 

where the complaint alleges that all the material events occurred and all the defendants are located.

Case 3:19-cv-08058-JD Document 24 Filed 03/28/20 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Crabtree has not established that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise 

to the claim occurred” in the Northern District for venue purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The 

only tie to the Northern District that Crabtree identifies is that he spent “approximately 5 1/3 

months” in custody at San Quentin, which is within our District. Dkt. No. 21 at 4. While it is 

undisputed at this point in the case that Crabtree suffered traumatic events there, including being 

threatened for being a child molester by another prisoner, his brief presence within this District is 

largely irrelevant to his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and resulting constitutional 

deprivations. All of those events occurred in Butte County. The complaint does not allege a claim 

based on his time in San Quentin, and no defendant is affiliated with the prison. 

None of Crabtree’s arguments suggest a different conclusion. He says that someone at San 

Quentin recommended Crabtree not receive probation, but that was based on a report “fabricated” 

in Butte County. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 117. He puts considerable emphasis on the “locus of injury” as a 

factor in determining venue, Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001), 

but that general proposition is of no help to him here. The “brunt of the harm” in Myers was

suffered in the venue where the plaintiff had sued. Id. at 1074, 1076 (citation omitted). That is a 

far cry from the situation here, where nothing material to the claims in the complaint occurred in

this District. 

An unpublished memorandum by the Ninth Circuit underscores this point. In Smith v. 

Schmidt, 52 Fed. App’x 11, 12 (9th Cir. 2002), a panel applied Myers to approve the venue of a 

Section 1983 suit in California against New Jersey prosecutors for providing “documents to the 

California Department of Correction (‘DOC’) for use” at a parole hearing. It concluded that 

“[b]ecause Smith alleged that the ‘locus of the injury’ was the parole hearing, which occurred in 

the Central District of California, venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).” Id. (citing 

Myers, 238 F.3d at 1075-76). In contrast, Crabtree’s claims are against Butte County and its 

officers for falsifying reports, malicious prosecution, coercing testimony, and other misconduct 

that took place in the Eastern District of California, not at San Quentin. 

Even if venue were proper in this District, which is not the case, a transfer to the Eastern 

District of California is warranted under Section 1404(a) “[f]or the convenience of parties and 

Case 3:19-cv-08058-JD Document 24 Filed 03/28/20 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Under this section, “the court may consider: (1) the location 

where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar 

with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with 

the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the 

differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process 

to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of 

proof.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 

All the applicable factors count against Crabtree except his choice of forum. The 

witnesses, documents, and evidence are overwhelmingly located in Butte County. The fact that 

Crabtree chose to file here is not enough to put aside the common sense conclusion that efficiency 

and economy are best served by litigating the claims in the venue where they arose. See PHH 

Mortg. Grp., 2016 WL 1588270, at *2. 

The case is transferred to the Eastern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08058-JD Document 24 Filed 03/28/20 Page 4 of 4