Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02120/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02120-10/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MILROD OLIC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2120 KJM GGH P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On March 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations, and respondent has filed a reply.1

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court declines to 

 

1

 On April 18, 2016, petitioner filed a reply to respondent’s reply to petitioner’s objections. ECF 

No. 55. Neither the findings and recommendations, nor 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), nor Local Rule 304 

authorize the filing of a reply to a reply in this context, and petitioner’s reply has not been 

considered by the court. 

Case 2:14-cv-02120-KJM-GGH Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 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 

2

adopt the findings and recommendations at this time. Instead, the matter will be referred back to 

the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of the recent en banc decision in 

Nettles v. Grounds, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 4072465 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en banc). 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 25, 2016, are not adopted; and 

 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed July 17, 2015 (ECF No. 32), is referred back to 

the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of Nettles v. Grounds, ___ F.3d 

___, 2016 WL 4072465 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en banc). 

DATED: September 7, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-02120-KJM-GGH Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 2