PATRICK RICHARDSON V. MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, No. 16-15875 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICK L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15875 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00893-MEJ v. MEMORANDUM* MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted April 11, 2017*** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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. 2 16-15875

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.