Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06317/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06317-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06317-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner Timothy Doyle Young, a federal prisoner convicted in Oregon and 

housed in Colorado, asks for federal habeas relief. This action is TRANSFERRED to the 

District of Oregon as that is the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d); 

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 

The Court notes the following. “Mr. Young has filed over 60 separate federal court 

cases across the country, in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, 

Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits, the United States District Courts for the Northern 

District of California, the Central District of California, the District of Colorado, the 

District of Columbia District Court, the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern 

District of New York.” Young v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 283, 290 (2009). By such 

excessive filings, “Mr. Young has made himself an example of the type of plaintiff 

Congress was trying to address when it enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 

Case 3:19-cv-06317-WHO Document 3 Filed 10/10/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Case 3:19-cv-06317-WHO Document 3 Filed 10/10/19 Page 2 of 2