Patterson v. California Department of Justice
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-02833
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Patterson v. California Department of Justice, Judge Lin dismissed Patterson’s civil-rights case as duplicative and vacated his fee-waiver motion.
Vester L. Patterson and the California Department of Justice and other named defendants; the case was dismissed, the pending filing-fee motion was vacated, no fee was due, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Patterson v. California Department of Justice, Vester L. Patterson, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under a federal law allowing suits against state actors. He challenged events connected to his criminal proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Patterson argued that the judge at his plea hearing never found him guilty, so he was not convicted and should be released. He had previously filed a case raising the same allegations, which was transferred to the Central District of California.
The court dismissed this case as duplicative, vacated Patterson’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, ordered that no fee was due, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Judge Rita F. Lin signed the order.
The detailed version
- Patterson v. California Department of Justice · No. 3:25-cv-02833
- Lin
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Vester L. Patterson, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His claims concerned the conduct of criminal proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court and administrative actions connected with his criminal trial.
Patterson alleged that the assigned superior court judge did not make a finding of guilt at his plea hearing. Based on that allegation, he contended that he had never been convicted and should be released from custody.
Earlier Related Proceedings
Patterson had previously filed a civil-rights case in the same court raising the same allegations. That earlier case was transferred to the Central District of California because the court stated that the conviction occurred there and that a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred there.
The opinion also states that Patterson previously filed a habeas petition concerning the same issue, which was transferred to the Central District of California, and that he recently filed another habeas petition concerning the same conviction.
Ruling
The court dismissed this case as duplicative, citing its authority to control its docket and dismiss duplicative actions. The court did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation. It vacated the pending motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, stated that no fee was due, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.