Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06030/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06030-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER STOKELY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOE McGRATH, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 01-6030 LJO WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2007

[Doc. 60]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. On February 26, 2007, Petitioner, acting

in pro se, filed a motion requesting that Phillip Cherney be appointed to continue to

represent Petitioner in this action. This motion is unnecessary. Mr. Cherney is Petitioner’s

counsel of record - no reappointment is necessary. Thus, this portion of Petitioner’s motion

is HEREBY DENIED as moot.

Petitioner also states that he does not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for the

final resolution of this case, and requests that a District Judge “adjudicate this case in full.” 

Case 1:01-cv-06030-LJO -WMW Document 61 Filed 03/02/07 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

As with all civil cases in this court, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pursuant to those

authorities, the Magistrate Judge will enter findings and recommendations in this case, to

which Petitioner, through counsel, will have a chance to object. The District Judge will then

review the case and make the final ruling and enter judgment. It is unclear if Petitioner

wishes to avoid the process in which a Magistrate Judge first enters findings and

recommendations in a case, before it is reviewed by a District Judge. To the extent that

Petitioner seeks to do this, his motion is DENIED.

Petitioner is informed that because he is represented by counsel, he may not properly

file anything in this case. Rather, all motions and pleadings must be filed by counsel. 

Accordingly, any further documents filed in this case by Petitioner in pro se will be

disregarded by the court.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06030-LJO -WMW Document 61 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 2