Source: https://casetext.com/case/orand-v-united-states-2
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 01:07:01
Document Index: 699568222

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 636', '§ 2254', '§ 631', '§ 2243', '§ 636', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636']

Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207 | Casetext Search + Citator
Orand v. United States
Leskinen v. Perdue
As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its…
Gifford v. Siskiyou Cnty. Sheriff
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th…
912 Citing Cases
Full title:DONALD MILTON ORAND, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…
Date published: Aug 14, 1979
602 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1979)
No. 77-3458.
August 8, 1979. As Corrected August 14, 1979.
Donald Milton Orand, pro. per.
William W. Youngman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., on brief for United States.
Before WRIGHT and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior District Judge.
Of the District of Nevada.
Our opinion of January 12, 1979, reported at 589 F.2d 472, is withdrawn. The mandate had been issued on February 6 but was recalled on March 26 when Orand was permitted to file a late petition for rehearing. The petition was granted. This opinion is substituted for the earlier one.
Orand's conviction for armed bank robbery was affirmed and his petition for writ of certiorari denied. United States v. Orand, 491 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1006, 94 S.Ct. 365, 38 L.Ed.2d 243 (1973). His motion for modification of sentence was denied and he has appealed from the denial of his § 2255 petition. We reverse and remand.
An evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 petition was held by a magistrate under Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate recommended denial and the district court adopted that recommendation. We conclude, contrary to Orand's assertion, that a magistrate rather than a judge may conduct a postconviction evidentiary hearing.
Orand cites Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461, 94 S.Ct. 2842, 41 L.Ed.2d 879 (1974), which held that an article III judge rather than a magistrate must conduct a § 2254 evidentiary hearing. The Court reached that result by its reading of congressional intent as revealed in the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631-639 (1970), and in 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (1970). See 418 U.S. at 469-74, 94 S.Ct. 2842. This court reversed and remanded a habeas corpus case for further proceedings before an article III judge in light of Wingo. McCusker v. Cupp, 506 F.2d 459, 460 (9th Cir. 1974).
The Court did not address any constitutional questions. 418 U.S. at 467 n.4, 94 S.Ct. 2842. Orand has raised no constitutional grounds for his appeal, and we perceive no need to address any.
In 1976, however, Congress amended the Magistrates Act in direct response to the holding in Wingo. Congress clearly expressed its intent that magistrates may conduct evidentiary hearings in postconviction relief proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1976).
The Fifth Circuit addressed the question presented here and held that, notwithstanding Wingo and McCusker, a magistrate may conduct an evidentiary hearing in a postconviction proceeding:
The legislative history to the 1976 statute clearly and firmly states the opinion of Congress that Wingo was wrongly decided and that the Supreme Court erroneously interpreted the intent of the earlier Congress which had adopted the Magistrates Act.
White v. Estelle, 556 F.2d 1366, 1367-68 (5th Cir. 1977) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 1609, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, pp. 6162-74).
Wingo, McCusker, and White concerned § 2254 proceedings involving state prisoner petitions. Orand is a federal prisoner petitioning under § 2255. This difference does not affect our holding here. Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, and Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, are identical. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1976) refers to postconviction proceedings in general.
We adopt the analysis and holding of White that a magistrate may conduct a postconviction evidentiary hearing. It makes good sense and is efficient judicial administration to delegate responsibilities to magistrates who perform commendable work as part of the federal judicial system.
The White court held that Congress overruled Wingo and the court applied its holding retroactively. 556 F.2d at 1367-69. Because Orand's evidentiary hearing was held after the effective date of Rule 8(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1976), the retroactivity question is not presented here.
Commendable as that work may be, the statute explicitly requires the district court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879, 95 S.Ct. 143, 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974), decided before the 1976 amendments to § 636(b), this court adopted the following procedure:
Cf. Small v. Olympic Prefabricators, Inc., 588 F.2d 287, 292 (9th Cir. 1979) (the district court must first review the proceedings of a civil trial conducted by a magistrate before it can enter final judgment).
The district court, on application, shall listen to the tape recording of the evidence and proceedings before the magistrate and consider the magistrate's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court shall make a de novo determination of the facts and the legal conclusions to be drawn therefrom.
Id. at 206-07 (footnote omitted).
Although Orand filed written objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, the district court did not make a de novo determination of the contested findings.
He contends and the government concedes that the district judge in this instance did not comply with the minimum requirements of Campbell and the 1976 amendments to § 636(b). There were no tape recordings of the evidence and proceedings before the magistrate. The stenographic notes from the magistrate's hearing were not fully transcribed until November 18, 1977, three months after the district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow the district court the opportunity to make a de novo determination of the facts and legal conclusions.
In United States v. Raddatz, 592 F.2d 976 (7th Cir. 1979), the Seventh Circuit held that in certain circumstances, due process may require a de novo hearing before an article III judge. Cf. United States v. Bergera, 512 F.2d 391, 392-94 (9th Cir. 1975) (if the district court rejects the magistrate's recommendation, the court must hear the testimony and see the evidence before deciding the motion).