Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00493/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Wayne Young
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY WAYNE YOUNG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden; et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 15-493 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, Jerry Wayne Young, is incarcerated at the California Institution for Men in

Chino serving a life sentence following a conviction in the San Diego County Superior Court.

Young commenced this action by filing a petition/motion to obtain relief from a void judgment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). In his petition/motion, he requests that this

court set aside a judgment of conviction from the San Diego County Superior Court that

occurred sometime between 1994 and 2001, for which he is still in custody. See Petitioner's Ex.

F. In his petition/motion, Young requests the following relief: (1) that he be transferred to

Donovan State Prison and then unconditionally released from that prison; (2) that an injunction

issue against all rulings in his criminal cases in the San Diego County Superior Court; (3) that

the court void the "judgment of second unlawful sentencing" in a San Diego County Superior

Court case; and (4) that a particular court reporter in San Diego be ordered to transcribe the

record for his criminal case in San Diego County Superior Court. See Docket # 1 at 10. 

There are several problems with the petition that lead the court to conclude that the action

must be dismissed. First, Rule 60(b)(4) is the wrong vehicle for the relief Young seeks. Rule

60(b) allows the court to grant relief from one of its own judgments, and does not provide a

mechanism to obtain relief from the judgment of another court. Rule 60(b) has no application

Case 3:15-cv-00493-SI Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

to Young's problem because he is not seeking relief from a judgment of this court. Young's

petition/motion to set aside the void judgment is DENIED. Docket # 1. Second, the exclusive

method by which a state prisoner may challenge his conviction in federal court is in a petition

for writ of habeas corpus. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011); Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). If Young want to challenge his state court conviction or

sentence in federal court, he must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to do so. Third, to the

extent his petition/motion seeks other relief (e.g., the preparation of a transcript or a transfer to

another prison) that would not result in his speedier release from prison, he could pursue such

relief in a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he can allege claims for violations of

his rights under the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See Skinner, 131 S. Ct.

at 1293 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82) ("Where the prisoner’s claim would not 'necessarily

spell speedier release,' however, suit may be brought under § 1983.'") The court will not

construe the Rule 60(b) motion to be a civil rights complaint. Fourth, the Northern District of

California is not the proper venue for either a habeas action or a civil rights action by Young

because he was not convicted in this district, is not confined in this district, and no defendant

resides in this district. The proper district for Young to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus

is the Southern District of California because he was convicted and sentenced in the San Diego

County Superior Court, which is located within the venue of the Southern District of California.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The proper district for Young to file a civil rights action is the district

where any defendant resides or in which a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

When an action is filed in the wrong district, the court may "dismiss, or if it be in the

interest of justice, transfer such a case to any district . . . in which it could have been brought."

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here, the action cannot proceed merely under the authority of Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b), and Young must choose whether to file a habeas petition, a civil rights

complaint or both. It is not in the interest of justice to transfer this procedurally deficient action

to the proper venue. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED because it was filed in the wrong

Case 3:15-cv-00493-SI Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This dismissal is without prejudice to Young filing a petition

for writ of habeas corpus and/or a civil rights complaint in the proper venue. The clerk shall

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2015 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00493-SI Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 3