Sanchez v. Spearmen

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Petition be Summarily Dismissed with Prejudice re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ;referred to Judge Ishii; ORDER VACATING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/02/2018.Objections to F&R due 21-Day Deadline (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-00723-AWI-JLT-HC

Petitioner,

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF APRIL 3, 2018

v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

M. E. SPEARMAN,
Respondent.

[21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

16
17

On May 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. On

18 September 7, 2017, the Court issued an order summarily dismissing the petition because the
19 claims clearly lacked merit. (Doc. 14.) Judgment was entered on the same date and the case was
20 terminated. (Doc. 15.)
21

Petitioner then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 30, 2018, the

22 Ninth Circuit, citing the recent decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir.
23 2017), determined that all parties, including unserved defendants, had not consented to the
24 jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 20.) The Ninth
25 Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the District Court. (Doc. 20.) Formal
26 mandate of the Court issued on April 23, 2018. (Doc. 22.)
27

The Court has reviewed the petition on remand. For the same reasons stated in the order

28 of September 7, 2017, the Court will recommend the petition be SUMMARILY DISMISSED

1

1 with prejudice.
ORDER

2

The Findings and Recommendation issued April 3, 2018, is hereby VACATED.1 (Doc.

3
4 21.)

RECOMMENDATION

5

The Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be SUMMARILY DISMISSED with

6

7 prejudice.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court

8

9 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and
10 Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of
11 California. Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written
12 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
13 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s
14 ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections
15 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
16 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

19

May 2, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Findings and Recommendation recommended that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to
the Court’s order of August 23, 2017; however, Petitioner named a proper respondent on August 28, 2017, and the
order was vacated. (Docs. 10, 12, 13.)

2