Wiggins v. Yates

Filing 19

ORDER Disregarding Petitioner's Motion To Decline Jurisdiction Of The Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10 ), ORDER Denying As Moot Petitioner's Third Motion For Extension Of Time To File An Opposition To Respondent's Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 16 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/18/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKEY WIGGINS,

12
13

Petitioner,
v.

14
JAMES A. YATES, Warden,
15
Respondent.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv-02093-OWW-JLT HC
ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION OF
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 10)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S
THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc.
16)

17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 20, 2010, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of

20

habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1).

21

On December 21, 2010, Respondent filed his written refusal to the consent of the United

22

States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 8). On December 23, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to decline

23

consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 10). On December 23,

24

2010, both parties having refused to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, the Court

25

assigned the case to United States District Judge Oliver Wanger. (Doc. 9).

26

On January 24, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 11). After

27

being granted several extensions of time, Petitioner, on May 4, 2011, filed his third request for an

28

extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 16). On May 13, 2011,
1

1

before the Court could rule on Petitioner’s request, Petitioner filed his opposition. (Doc. 17). On

2

May 18, 2011, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion

3

to dismiss. (Doc. 18).

4

Petitioner’s “motion” to refuse consent of the Magistrate Judge is not properly brought as

5

a motion but rather as a “consent” or “refusal of consent” to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction.

6

Since both parties refused consent and the matter was assigned to a United States District Judge,

7

Petitioner’s “motion” will be disregarded. Petitioner’s third motion for extension of time to file

8

an opposition to the motion to dismiss is moot because he has already filed his opposition and the

9

Court, after considering Petitioner’s opposition, has ruled on the motion to dismiss.

10

ORDER

11

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

12

1.

13
14

Petitioner’s motion to decline jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10), is
DISREGARDED; and,

2.

Petitioner’s third motion for extension of time (Doc. 16), is DENIED as MOOT.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: May 18, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2