Ybarra v. Jones
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03848
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Ybarra v. Jones, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York transferred the case filed by pro se plaintiff Steve Salvador Ybarra against Minnesota attorney Sharon Jones to the District of Minnesota, finding that Minnesota is the proper venue because the defendant lives there, the alleged conduct occurred there, and Ybarra had already filed a nearly identical lawsuit in that district.
Pro se litigants who file suits in a district where they do not reside and where the relevant events did not occur, particularly those who have already filed similar suits in another district, may have their cases transferred regardless of their chosen venue. Parties involved in family law disputes with federal civil rights or RICO claims arising from out-of-state proceedings may also be affected.
What happened
In Ybarra v. Jones (Case No. 25-CV-7746), Steve Salvador Ybarra, a California resident representing himself, sued Sharon Jones, a Minnesota attorney who represents his estranged wife in a Minnesota child custody and divorce case. Ybarra claimed Jones and others engaged in a conspiracy, bringing claims under federal anti-racketeering law (RICO), and two federal civil rights statutes (42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985). Ybarra argued that his lawsuit belonged in New York because money allegedly transferred as part of the conspiracy passed through New York banks.
The court assumed, without deciding, that New York might technically be a permissible venue for some of Ybarra's claims. However, federal law allows courts to transfer a case to a more appropriate district in the interest of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses, even when the court where the case was filed is a proper venue. The court identified several factors pointing strongly toward Minnesota: the defendant lives there, the alleged wrongdoing occurred there, and Ybarra had already filed a virtually identical lawsuit in Minnesota that remains pending — creating a strong legal preference for that earlier-filed forum.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The New York court closed the case and terminated all pending motions. The question of whether Ybarra may proceed without paying court filing fees was left for the Minnesota court to decide. The court also noted that any appeal of this transfer order would not be considered taken in good faith, meaning Ybarra could not appeal without paying the standard appellate filing fees.
The detailed version
Case: Ybarra v. Jones, No. 25-CV-7746 (LTS), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Decided: September 24, 2025. Judge: Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Background and Parties Plaintiff Steve Salvador Ybarra, a California resident proceeding pro se (representing himself without an attorney), sued Sharon Jones, an attorney based in Minnesota who represents Ybarra's estranged wife, Michell (also spelled Michelle in the opinion) Ybarra, in an ongoing child custody and divorce proceeding in Minnesota. Ybarra brought claims under: (1) the civil provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1965; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy for violations of federal constitutional rights by persons acting under color of state law; and (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which addresses conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. Notably, Ybarra had already filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the District of Minnesota — Ybarra v. Legal Assis. Of Dakota Cnty., No. 25-CV-1948 (MKK) (DJF) (D. Minn.) ('Ybarra I') — involving Jones and additional defendants including his employer, Dakota County legal assistance staff, Minnesota judges, and Michelle Ybarra.
Venue Analysis The court analyzed venue (the legally proper geographic location for a lawsuit) under the applicable statutes. For civil RICO claims, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) allows suit in any district where the defendant resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts affairs. The court found that venue for the RICO claims is proper in the District of Minnesota because Jones resides there.
For the § 1983 and § 1985 claims, venue is governed by the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which permits suit where: (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in that state; (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, if no other district qualifies. Ybarra argued that New York was proper under § 1391(b)(2) because the allegedly conspiratorial money transfers 'cleared and settled through New York correspondent/custodian banks.' The court assumed without deciding that this argument might support New York venue for the § 1983 and § 1985 claims, but proceeded to the transfer analysis.
Transfer Analysis Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Even when venue is technically proper, a court may transfer a case to another district '[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice' under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts may initiate such transfers on their own — without a party requesting it. Chief Judge Swain identified four reasons supporting transfer to Minnesota:
- RICO venue: The District of Minnesota is a proper venue for the RICO claims because Jones resides there.
- Location of operative events: The alleged conspiracy occurred in Minnesota, where Jones and her alleged co-conspirators all reside. The New York connection — money clearing through New York banks — was incidental to the underlying conduct, which was Minnesota-based.
- First-filed rule: Ybarra already has a substantially similar lawsuit pending in the District of Minnesota. Under the 'first-filed rule,' courts presume in favor of transferring to or keeping a case in the forum where the first-filed action is pending, to avoid duplicative litigation.
- Plaintiff's forum choice receives less weight: Ybarra lives in California, not New York, and the events at issue did not occur in New York. Courts give a plaintiff's choice of forum less deference when the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative facts did not occur there.
Disposition Chief Judge Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case is closed in the Southern District of New York, and all pending motions are terminated. The transferee court (Minnesota) will decide whether Ybarra may proceed without prepaying filing fees (in forma pauperis status). Notably, Ybarra neither paid the filing fee nor formally requested a fee waiver.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith, which means that Ybarra would not be entitled to appeal without paying the standard appellate filing fees.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.