Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00013-9/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

GREGORY EUGENE BISEL,

Petitioner,

v.

RAY FISHER, JR., Warden; et al.,

Respondents.

No. 1:17-cv-00013-DAD-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 

RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATING A 

COURT ORDER

(Doc. No. 44)

Petitioner Gregory Eugene Bisel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On December 2, 2019, petitioner moved to disqualify respondents for violating a court 

order by failing to return a completed form indicating either consent to or declining to consent to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction within the time allotted by court order. (Doc. No. 41; see Doc. Nos. 

34, 36.) On December 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending denial of petitioner’s motion but also cautioning respondents 

that failure to comply with court deadlines may result in the imposition of sanctions. (Doc. No. 

Case 1:17-cv-00013-ADA-SKO Document 50 Filed 03/19/20 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

44.) The findings and recommendations were served on both parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the

order. (Id. at 2–3.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 44),

are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s motion to disqualify respondents (Doc. No. 41) is denied; and 

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00013-ADA-SKO Document 50 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 2