Case Name: Patrick L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-21
Citations: 689 F. App'x 528
Docket Number: No. 16-15875
Parties: Patrick L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and . HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
Patrick L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15875
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 21, 2017
Patrick L. Richardson, Pro Se
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and . HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Patrick L. Richardson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Richardson's petition challenging his California state conviction for murder because coram nobis relief is not available in federal court to attack a state court conviction. See id. at 1131 ("[W]rit of error coram nobis . may only be brought in the sentencing court.").
Richardson's request that this court order the district court to.cease collecting payments from his prisoner trust account to satisfy the filing fee, set forth in his request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6), is denied. To the extent that Richardson requests that this court take judicial notice of the district court's orders in this proceeding (Docket Entry No. 6), that request is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.