Patrick Richardson v. Monterey County Superior Court , 689 F. App'x 528 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 21 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK L. RICHARDSON,                          No. 16-15875
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00893-MEJ
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR
    COURT,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
    Submitted April 11, 2017***
    Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Patrick L. Richardson appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of coram nobis. We
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
    U.S.C. § 636(c).
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
    dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, United States v. Monreal, 
    301 F.3d 1127
    , 1130
    (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Richardson’s petition challenging his
    California state conviction for murder because coram nobis relief is not available
    in federal court to attack a state court conviction. See 
    id. at 1131
    (“[W]rit of error
    coram nobis . . . may only be brought in the sentencing court.”).
    Richardson’s request that this court order the district court to cease
    collecting payments from his prisoner trust account to satisfy the filing fee, set
    forth in his request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6), is denied. To the
    extent that Richardson requests that this court take judicial notice of the district
    court’s orders in this proceeding (Docket Entry No. 6), that request is denied as
    unnecessary.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     16-15875
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-15875

Citation Numbers: 689 F. App'x 528

Judges: Gould, Clifton, Hurwitz

Filed Date: 4/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024