(PC) Bonilla v. Ervine, No. 2:2018cv01354 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/25/2018 VACATING the 5/25/2018 findings and recommendations 3 , and TRANSFERRING this matter to the USDC for the Northern District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bonilla v. Ervine Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, 12 13 No. 2:18-cv-1354 MCE AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER 14 CHARLES H. ERVINE, Superior Court Judge, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison proceeding pro se with a motion to 18 “void judgment” pursuant to Rule 60, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more appropriately 19 characterized as a putative petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Plaintiff seeks to invalidate his conviction in the Alameda County Superior Court. ECF 21 No. 1. Although plaintiff attempts to characterize this action as one for relief from judgment 22 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, Rule 60 does not provide a basis for relief from a state 23 court judgment. Holder v. Simon, 384 F. App’x 669 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The district court properly 24 dismissed [plaintiff’s] complaint sua sponte because Rule 60(b) does not provide a basis for 25 subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief from a state court judgment.” (Citing Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 60(b), (d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)). Plaintiff is clearly seeking to challenge his 27 conviction and sentence and seeks relief that is only obtainable through a petition for writ of 28 habeas corpus. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of 2 confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state 3 prisoners. Because plaintiff was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined here, 4 this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain his putative habeas petition. In the instant case, 5 both plaintiff’s place of conviction and place of incarceration are counties covered by the District 6 Court for the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 7 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed by the undersigned on May 25, 2018, ECF 9 No. 3 (recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim), are VACATED; and 10 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 11 California. 12 DATED: September 25, 2018 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
