Young v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing 3

ORDER OF TRANSFER. This action is transferred to the District of Oregon. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/10/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 19-cv-06317-WHO (PR) ORDER OF TRANSFER v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendant. 16 17 Petitioner Timothy Doyle Young, a federal prisoner convicted in Oregon and 18 housed in Colorado, asks for federal habeas relief. This action is TRANSFERRED to the 19 District of Oregon as that is the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d); 20 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 21 The Court notes the following. “Mr. Young has filed over 60 separate federal court 22 cases across the country, in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, 23 Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits, the United States District Courts for the Northern 24 District of California, the Central District of California, the District of Colorado, the 25 District of Columbia District Court, the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern 26 District of New York.” Young v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 283, 290 (2009). By such 27 excessive filings, “Mr. Young has made himself an example of the type of plaintiff 28 Congress was trying to address when it enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 U.S.C. § 1915.” Id. at 291. The Court will quote from a judicial decision regarding a 2008 federal case Young filed here in the Northern District that was transferred to Colorado: Plaintiff also maliciously and purposely has filed actions in other federal courts knowing, as demonstrated in the cited cases below, that venue is not proper and that the actions more properly are filed in this Court. See Young v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, et al., No. 07-cv-00343-UNA (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2007) (transferred to the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)); Young v. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 07-cv-00817-UNA (D.D.C. May 4, 2007) (ordered transferred to the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)); Young v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 07-cv-01759-UNA (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2007) (transferred to the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)); Young v. DOJ, United States, No. 07-CV-05057-SLT-LB (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2007) (transferred to the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)); Young v. United States, No. 07-cv-06004-THE (N.D. Calif. Dec. 17, 2007) (transferred to the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)); Young v. United States, No. 08-cv-00048-THE (N.D. Calif. Jan. 18, 2008) (transferred to the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)). Young v. United States, No. 08-cv-00226-BNB, 2008 WL 1765652, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 16, 2008.) His filings, the Colorado court found, were “abusive.” The United States Supreme Court in rejecting a petition from Young stated, “[a]s petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.” Young v. Madison, 133 S. Ct. 619 (2012). The Clerk shall transfer this action forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2019 _________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 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?