Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00953-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of California
Respondent
Jose A.V. Nava
Petitioner
D.K. Sisto
Respondent

Document Text:

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

The court’s docket also lists “Attorney General of the State of California” as a 1

respondent. Because this entity is not named in the petition, the Clerk of the Court will be

directed to terminate this respondent. This action proceeds against respondent D.K. Sisto only. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE A.V. NAVA, No. CIV S-08-0953-JAM-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

D.K. SISTO,1

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The parties are informed that they may, if all consent in writing, have this case

assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes while preserving their right to

appeal any final judgment directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or,

where appropriate, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c)(1), (3); see also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 73-305(a), (c). The parties are advised that they

Case 2:08-cv-00953-JAM-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/24/08 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

On July 17, 2008, the court directed respondent to indicate his position regarding 2

consent concurrent with the filing of his response to the petition. Respondent filed an answer on

September 15, 2008, but has not filed the form indicating his position on consent.

2

are free to withhold consent and that doing so shall not result in any adverse substantive

consequences. See § 636(c)(2). If all parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the action

will be reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See

Local Rule 73-301 and Local Rule 73-305(b). 

A review of the record reflects that petitioner has consented in writing to the

exercise of full jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. (see Doc. 4). The record does not reflect any

election regarding consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction by respondent. The Clerk of the Court

will be directed to provide respondent with the appropriate form which respondent shall then

complete, indicating either consent or non-consent as respondent may choose, and file with the

court. 

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate “Attorney General of the

State of California” as a respondent to this action;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to respondent the court’s

“Notice of Availability of a Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction and Appeal Instructions”

along with the accompanying consent election form; and

3. Respondent shall complete and file the consent election form within 30

days of the date of this order.

DATED: September 23, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00953-JAM-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 2