Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01666/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01666-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Janice Sue Taylor, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1666-PHX-DGC (BSB) 

No. CR 10-0400-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Movant Janice Sue Taylor, who is confined in the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan,

Texas, filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal

Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In an Order filed on November 13, 2012, the Court

ordered a response to the Motion and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade

for a report and recommendation. (Doc. 3.) On December 18, 2012, Movant filed a motion

captioned as “Motion for Article III Judge and Removal of Magistrate Judge.” (Doc. 6.)

That motion will be denied. 

Movant asks that an Article III judge be assigned to her § 2255 proceedings. Movant

also states that she does not consent to her § 2255 motion being referred to a magistrate

judge.

As an initial matter, Movant’s § 2255 motion is before the undersigned, who is an

Article III judge. A district judge may designate a magistrate judge to submit to him

proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses, such as Movant. 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:12-cv-01666-DGC Document 10 Filed 01/18/13 Page 1 of 3
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 -

§ 636(b)(1)(B). Further, under this District’s Local Rules, habeas corpus petitions are

assigned to a district court judge and referred to a magistrate judge. LRCiv. 3.7(e). Consent

of a § 2255 movant is not required. 

When a § 2255 motion is referred to a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge considers

the parties’ filings and issues a report and recommendation to this Court. The parties are

afforded the opportunity to make objections to the report and recommendation. This Court

will consider the parties’ objections, if any, and will determine whether to adopt or reject the

report and recommendation. Thus, this Court, not Magistrate Judge Bade, will decide

whether to grant or deny Movant relief after affording Movant an opportunity to raise

objections. Movant’s motion will be denied. 

Warnings

A. Address Changes

Movant must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Movant must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Movant must serve Respondent, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate

stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Movant must submit

an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may

result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Movant.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Movant fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

///

Case 2:12-cv-01666-DGC Document 10 Filed 01/18/13 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that Movant’s Motion for Article III Judge and Removal of

Magistrate Judge is denied. (Doc. 6.)

DATED this 18th day of January, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01666-DGC Document 10 Filed 01/18/13 Page 3 of 3