Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01395/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01395-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIOT LAMONT ROGERS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1395 DAD P

vs.

MARK SHEPHERD,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. On

August 4, 2005, following the transfer of the action to this court from the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of California, petitioner filed a consent to proceed before a United States

Magistrate Judge in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). On June 5, 2007,

counsel for respondent filed a similar consent form with the court. Accordingly, on June 8, 2007,

the district judge reassigned the case to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of

final judgment. On June 14, 2007, petitioner filed a request for clarification of the reassignment

order. Therein, petitioner states that he does not recall consenting to have a magistrate judge

preside over his case and that he wishes his request for clarification to be construed as an express

denial of consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 

Case 2:05-cv-01395-DAD Document 24 Filed 08/03/07 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

2

“The right to adjudication before an Article III judge is an important constitutional

right.” United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992, 999 (9th Cir.1993). However, like other

fundamental rights, this right can be waived if the parties consent to trial before a magistrate

judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479-80 (9th Cir.1993); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Once a civil

case is referred to a magistrate judge under § 636(c), the reference can be vacated by the court

only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by

any party.” Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4)). 

On August 4, 2005, petitioner voluntarily consented in writing to have a United

States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final

judgment, with direct review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the event an appeal is

filed. Petitioner has not moved to withdraw his written consent. Moreover, his request for

clarification does not demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances that would justify the

vacating of the reference. Finally, the undersigned finds good cause to vacate the reference to be

lacking. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2007.

DAD:9

roge1395.consent

Case 2:05-cv-01395-DAD Document 24 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2