Coleman v. Ortiz
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-01167
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Coleman v. Ortiz: Judge Illston dismissed the action without prejudice because Coleman failed to submit a pleading showing federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Wendell Coleman’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and the file was closed. The order did not decide whether his allegations about the state-court criminal proceedings were correct.
What happened
In Coleman v. Ortiz, Wendell Coleman asked the federal court to stop or limit orders entered in his Napa County criminal case. He named Napa County Superior Court Judges M. Boessenecker and Elia Ortiz as defendants.
Coleman alleged that the judges made several incorrect rulings, including allowing continuances, denying self-representation and witnesses, setting unaffordable bail, questioning his competence, and allowing ineffective counsel. He also sought changes to no-contact orders and probation. The court notified him that he had not submitted a complaint or petition and had not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed without paying it.
Coleman did not submit a complaint or petition by the deadline. Judge Susan Illston dismissed the action without prejudice because he failed to provide a pleading showing that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction, and she directed the clerk to close the file. The order stated that a person seeking to challenge a state conviction or sentence in federal court may use a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but must first exhaust available state-court remedies.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Ortiz · No. 3:21-cv-01167
- Susan Illston
- May 4, 2021
Background
Wendell Coleman filed a document titled “request for injunction command against illegal orders.” The defendants identified in the opinion were M. Boessenecker and Elia Ortiz, judges of the Napa County Superior Court. Coleman alleged that they had made numerous erroneous rulings in a criminal case against him, including allowing continuances, disallowing self-representation, denying witnesses at trial, failing to provide affordable bail, allowing a declaration of doubt about his competence, and allowing him to be represented by ineffective counsel.
Coleman requested an injunction that would remove his daughter from no-contact orders, suspend his probation terms until appellate review, and protect him from further legal action by judicial officers from the Napa court until an appellate decision. The court notified Coleman that the filing was deficient because he had not submitted a complaint or petition and had not filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court gave him 28 days to correct those deficiencies.
Ruling
Coleman did not submit a complaint or petition by the deadline. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to submit a pleading showing that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The clerk was directed to close the file.
The court also stated that a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive federal-court remedy for challenging a state-court conviction or sentence. It cautioned that a person in state custody must first exhaust available state judicial remedies by giving the highest available state court a fair opportunity to rule on each claim. The opinion did not decide the merits of Coleman’s allegations about the state-court proceedings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.