Roberts v. Ayers, et al

Filing 535

ORDER granting Petitioner's 530 Motion for Reassignment, signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 12/8/15. This case is hereby REASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd for disposition. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY ROBERTS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

No. 2:93-cv-00254-TLN-KJN

v.

ORDER

RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin
State Prison,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner Larry Roberts (“Petitioner”) initiated this habeas action with a motion for

19

appointment of counsel and stay of execution in 1993. The Petition is currently assigned

20

to Judge Nunley and Magistrate Judge Newman. Former Magistrate Judge Dale A.

21

Drozd had been assigned to the case from 1997 until his confirmation as a district judge

22

in October 2015. Through the Motion for Reassignment (“Motion”) presently before the

23

Court, Petitioner requests that Judge Drozd be reassigned as the district judge for this

24

case. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Motion is GRANTED.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Local Rule 120(f) provides that the Court may transfer an action to another venue

2

within the District for good cause. Petitioner contends that good cause exists to reassign

3

this case to District Judge Drozd because his familiarity with the action from his time as a

4

magistrate judge will result in a more efficient resolution. Defendant argues to the

5

contrary that any efficiency gains that may result from assigning Judge Drozd as the

6

district judge for this matter are purely speculative. Furthermore, Defendant contends

7

that the assignment of district court judges to cases on which they previously sat as

8

magistrate judges is undesirable under Ninth Circuit precedent.

9

The Court finds that there is good cause to reassign this case to Judge Drozd.

10

Judge Drozd presided over this matter as a magistrate judge for more than eighteen

11

years. He has conducted several multi-day hearings, issued countless orders, and is

12

intimately familiar with the abundant evidence at issue in this case. Even Defendant

13

admits that it would take a newly assigned Magistrate Judge four days or more to review

14

the evidence necessary to issue findings and recommendations for Judge Nunley’s

15

review. See ECF No. 531 at 4-5 (asserting that a newly assigned magistrate would have

16

to read 342 pages of transcripts and watch three to four days of video depositions to

17

issue findings and recommendations). This Court has one of the heaviest caseloads in

18

the nation, and Judge Drozd’s familiarity with the issues in this case will undoubtedly

19

result in a more efficient and swiftly-issued disposition. The increased efficiency that will

20

come from reassigning Judge Drozd to this case is significant not only to this Court, but

21

also to Petitioner, who has waited 22 years for a decision in this case.

22

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2009)

23

does mandate a different decision. Indeed, the Dawson panel held that there is no law

24

or constitutional right that prevents district court judges from reviewing cases on which

25

they previously sat as magistrate judges. Id. at 933. Furthermore, the concern that

26

motivated the Dawson panel to caution against assigning new district judges to cases

27

they handled as magistrates is not present here. In Dawson, the reassigned district

28

judge ruled on the findings and recommendations that he issued as a magistrate judge.
2

1

Id. at 932. In contrast, Judge Drozd has not issued findings and recommendations in

2

this case. This Court has previously reassigned a case to a district judge that sat on that

3

case as a magistrate where reassignment would not have required the district judge to

4

review her own recommendations on dispositive matters and where there was good

5

cause for reassignment. Osband v. Warden, No. 2:-97-cv-0152-WBS-GGH, ECF

6

No. 583 at 2 (E.D. Cal. 2011). That is also the case here, and Petitioner’s Motion for

7

Reassignment (ECF No. 530) is accordingly GRANTED. This case is hereby reassigned

8

to District Judge Dale A. Drozd for disposition.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 8, 2015

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3