Barlow v. Laffer et al
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 3/23/17. (Todd, James)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CLINTON C. BARLOW, III,
ARTHUR B. LAFFER, ET AL.,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)
On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff Clinton C. Barlow, III, a resident of Trenton, New
Jersey, filed a pro se civil action purportedly alleging violations of his civil rights. (ECF No.
1.) He did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff sues various residents of New Jersey, including New Jersey state officials and a
judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Federal Judiciary Public Access to Court Electronic Records Service (“PACER”)
shows that Plaintiff has filed more than seventy separate actions in the federal courts since
1991. Most have been filed in New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is subject to
a filing injunction in New Jersey. See Barlow v. Scott-Buzzi, No. 00-5645, at 1 (D.N.J. Mar
30, 2001) (ECF No. 34) (“[P]laintiff is permanently enjoined from filing any new civil
actions in this Court without prior written approval of the Court.”). The New Jersey District
Court stated that it would not consider granting approval unless Barlow first submitted a
copy of the proposed complaint, “a sworn affidavit that the facts upon which he bases his
claims are true” and “a clear statement of the legal bases for his claims.” Id. at 1. The New
Jersey court “has repeatedly enforced the terms of [the] permanent injunction and ordered
the Clerk of the Court not to file myriad submissions by Barlow.” Barlow v. Ewing Twp.,
No. 3:11-mc-00089-GEB, at 2 (D.N.J. June 14, 2001) (ECF No. 2) (Order).
It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to avoid the New Jersey injunction by filing his
action in this district. As stated, he has sued only New Jersey residents and while his claim
is difficult to decipher,1 Barlow appears to allege that the Defendants have violated his civil
rights because they will not settle his New Jersey tort claim. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
authorizes the commencement of a civil action only in a judicial district:
(1) where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred . . . , or (3) a judicial district in which any
defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may
otherwise be brought.
This case has no connection with this district. The Defendants reside in New Jersey, and the
allegedly unlawful acts occurred there.
Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 1406(a) states that “[t]he district court of a district in which
is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the
interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought.” For the reasons stated, this action should have been brought in the District of New
The complaint is difficult to decipher because of Plaintiff’s poor handwriting and also
because it is, to a large extent, incoherent.
Jersey. Therefore, this case is hereby TRANSFERRED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a),
to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Clerk is directed to close this case without entry of judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?