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 the civil case and directed the clerk to file Ortiz’s petition in his criminal case.
Catalino Ortiz, his criminal case, and the clerk of court; the separate civil action was closed.
What happened
Catalino Ortiz filed a petition asking for a specific type of relief in his criminal case, but his counsel mistakenly filed it as a separate civil case labeled as a habeas petition.
The court directed the clerk to file the petition and exhibits in Ortiz’s criminal case, United States v. Ortiz, Case No. 5:00-cr-20277-PVT-1. The court also directed Ortiz to give the assigned magistrate judge a copy of the petition and exhibits after the criminal case was reassigned.
The court closed the civil action. Judge Kandis Westmore did not decide whether Ortiz should receive the requested relief.
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 states that counsel mistakenly filed the petition electronically as a habeas petition in a separate civil action rather than as a motion in Ortiz’s criminal case. The court cited the rule that a coram nobis request is part of the criminal case, not the start of a separate civil proceeding.
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-cr-20277-PVT-1. 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 opinion did not grant or deny the requested coram nobis relief and did not decide the merits of the petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.