Ortiz v. Whitaker
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:19-cv-00235
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Ortiz v. Whitaker, Judge Westmore closed a wrongly filed civil case and directed the clerk to place Ortiz’s petition in his criminal case.
Catalino Ortiz, whose petition was transferred from this separate civil action for filing in his criminal case; the clerk was directed to file the petition and exhibits there.
What happened
In Ortiz v. Whitaker, Catalino Ortiz filed a petition seeking a writ of error coram nobis, which the opinion explains is a request made within a criminal case rather than a separate civil lawsuit. Counsel mistakenly filed it as a habeas petition in a new civil action.
The court directed the clerk to file the petition and exhibits in Ortiz’s criminal case, United States v. Ortiz, Case No. 5:00-MJ-00237. The court also directed Ortiz to give the assigned judge a chambers copy after the criminal case was reassigned to an active magistrate judge.
The court closed the civil action. Judge Kandis Westmore did not decide the petition’s underlying request in this order.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. Whitaker · No. 4:19-cv-00235
- Kandis Westmore
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
On January 11, 2019, Catalino Ortiz filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The opinion explains that this type of request is a step in the criminal case, not the beginning of a separate civil proceeding. Ortiz’s counsel mistakenly filed the petition electronically as a habeas petition in a separate civil action rather than as a motion in the criminal case.
Court’s action
Because the petition had been filed as a separate civil action, the court directed the clerk to file a copy of the petition and its exhibits in Ortiz’s criminal case, United States v. Ortiz, Case No. 5:00-MJ-00237. The court also directed Ortiz to provide the assigned judge with a chambers copy of the petition and its tabbed exhibits after the criminal case was reassigned to an active magistrate judge.
Disposition
The court ordered that the civil action be closed. The order did not decide the merits of Ortiz’s petition or state whether he was entitled to the requested relief.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.