Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02360/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02360-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesse Stephen King
Petitioner
Charles Schuyler
Respondent

Document Text:

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 Petitioner Jesse Stephen King has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 

18 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge under this District’s 

19 Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(17). In March 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued an order 

20 (1) instructing petitioner to pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed application to 

21 proceed in forma pauperis, (2) denying petitioner’s request for a transfer to a court in San Diego 

22 and (3) dismissing the petition with leave to amend for failure to comply with Rule 2 of the Rules 

23 Governing Section 2254 Cases. See generally Order (Mar. 8, 2024), ECF No. 13. Petitioner has 

24 since filed several “objections” to that order. See ECF Nos. 15–17. The court construes these 

25 objections as motions for reconsideration by the district judge and exercises its discretion to 

26 consider them despite the passage of the relevant filing deadline. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(c). 

27 When a district judge is asked to reconsider a matter delegated to a magistrate judge, the 

28 district court decides whether the order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 

Jesse Stephen King, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Schuyler, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:23-cv-02360-KJM-SCR 

ORDER 

Case 2:23-cv-02360-KJM-SCR Document 22 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 § 636(b)(1)(A); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). These two standards, “clearly erroneous” and 

2 “contrary to law,” apply to different aspects of the magistrate judge’s order. The “contrary to 

3 law” standard applies to legal determinations. See, e.g., Computer Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp., 

4 Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999). The district court exercises its “independent 

5 judgment with respect to a magistrate judge's legal conclusions.” Id. The “clearly erroneous” 

6 standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual determinations and discretionary decisions. See 

7 id. (citing Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990)). This standard is more 

8 deferential. A decision is “clearly erroneous” if the district court “is left with the definite and 

9 firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr. 

10 Laborers Pension Tr., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 

11 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). 

12 Petitioner has not shown the Magistrate Judge’s order in this case was clearly erroneous or 

13 contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined petitioner should have the 

14 opportunity to file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate 

15 Judge also correctly found the record did not show, at that point, whether this district is the proper 

16 venue. Nor did the Magistrate Judge err in concluding the original petition did not set forth facts 

17 supporting each of the grounds for relief under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

18 Cases. 

19 The objections at ECF Nos. 15–17, construed as motions for reconsideration by the 

20 district court, are denied. 

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

22 DATED: October 3, 2024. 

23 

Case 2:23-cv-02360-KJM-SCR Document 22 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 2