Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01194/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01194-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GLENN WYRICK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-1194 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER WITHDRAWING JULY 25, 2006, 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT RECOMMENDED THE PETITION BE

DISMISSED

[Doc. #12]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Linda Buchalter, Esq.

On July 25, 2006, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendation that recommended

Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be GRANTED, the petition be

DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On August 3, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Petitioner first takes exception to the participation of the undersigned in this action. Petitioner states

he clearly declined to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge when he returned the consent/decline

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 According to the Ninth Circuit’s docket, the matter was argued and submitted on March 16, 2006. 1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

form on October 6, 2006, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Petitioner misunderstands the rules. By

consenting to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to § 636(c)(1), a United States

Magistrate Judge “may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the

entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such judgment by the district

court or courts he serves.” Notwithstanding this provision, under § 636(b)(1)(B), “a judge may also

designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a

judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of

the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by

individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of

confinement.” Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), the District Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge

on August 15, 2005. The undersigned did not act to “intercept” the documents submitted by

Petitioner; they were specifically directed to the undersigned’s attention pursuant to court order

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The undersigned further notes Petitioner’s objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with those objections, the undersigned hereby WITHDRAWS the

Findings and Recommendation pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sass v. California Board of

Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 2