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)

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