(HC) Patterson v. Superior Court of the County of Solano, No. 2:2009cv00768 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/9/2010 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 , 2 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 petitions for writs of mandate and prohibition be denied; and the clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days.(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Patterson v. Superior Court of the County of Solano Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRYAN DAMON PATTERSON, 11 12 13 Petitioner, vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANO COUNTY, 14 Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 No. CIV S-09-0768 GEB EFB P Petitioner, a defendant in a criminal state court action, has filed six petitions that he styles 17 as petitions for writs of mandate and one petition that he identifies as a petition for a writ of 18 prohibition. Dckt. Nos. 1, 2, 8-12. He claims that the Solano County Superior Court 19 erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the criminal case based on Brady violations.1 He asks 20 this court to prevent the Superior Court from proceeding to trial in his criminal case, either by 21 staying the action or by dismissing it entirely. See, e.g., Dckt. No. 1 at 4; Dckt. No. 8 at 1. 22 The petitions are captioned “In the Court of Appeal of the State of California, the Eastern 23 Appellate District, Division Sacramento.” Petitioner may have intended to file his petitions in 24 the California Court of Appeal rather than in this court. Regardless of petitioner’s intentions, a 25 1 26 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86 (1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of evidence violated defendant’s due process rights). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review legal errors in state court decisions. 2 Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U .S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 3 Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). See also Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003) (a 4 federal plaintiff who seeks relief from a state court judgment based on allegedly erroneous 5 decision is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the federal court lacks subject matter 6 jurisdiction). This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s requests. 7 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Petitioner’s petitions for writs of mandate and prohibition, Dckt. Nos. 1, 2, 8-12, be 9 denied; and 10 2. The Clerk be directed to close the case. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days after 13 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 14 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 15 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 16 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 17 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 Dated: February 9, 2010. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
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.
