Bonilla v. Ervine
Filing
26
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/25/2018 VACATING the 5/25/2018 findings and recommendations 3 , and TRANSFERRING this matter to the USDC for the Northern District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
12
13
No. 2:18-cv-1354 MCE AC P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
14
CHARLES H. ERVINE, Superior Court Judge,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison proceeding pro se with a motion to
18
“void judgment” pursuant to Rule 60, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more appropriately
19
characterized as a putative petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
20
Plaintiff seeks to invalidate his conviction in the Alameda County Superior Court. ECF
21
No. 1. Although plaintiff attempts to characterize this action as one for relief from judgment
22
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, Rule 60 does not provide a basis for relief from a state
23
court judgment. Holder v. Simon, 384 F. App’x 669 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The district court properly
24
dismissed [plaintiff’s] complaint sua sponte because Rule 60(b) does not provide a basis for
25
subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief from a state court judgment.” (Citing Fed. R.
26
Civ. P. 60(b), (d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)). Plaintiff is clearly seeking to challenge his
27
conviction and sentence and seeks relief that is only obtainable through a petition for writ of
28
habeas corpus.
1
1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of
2
confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state
3
prisoners. Because plaintiff was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined here,
4
this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain his putative habeas petition. In the instant case,
5
both plaintiff’s place of conviction and place of incarceration are counties covered by the District
6
Court for the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(a).
7
Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1. The findings and recommendations filed by the undersigned on May 25, 2018, ECF
9
No. 3 (recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim), are VACATED; and
10
2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
11
California.
12
DATED: September 25, 2018
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?