Garcia v. Clark

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/13/10 ordering petitioner's 08/02/10 motion for the reassignment of this case 21 is denied as moot. Petitioner's 08/11/10 motion for his pleadings to be interpreted more liberally 23 is denied as unnecessary. (Plummer, M)

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 This case will therefore proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302. Any dispositive findings and recommendations made by the undersigned magistrate judge will be reviewed de novo by the assigned United States District Judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARIO FLAVIO GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. KEN CLARK, Warden, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, is seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has two motions pending before the court. First, on August 2, 2010, petitioner filed a motion requesting that this case be reassigned to a United States District Judge. As the court explained in its June 22, 2010 order, petitioner's decision to decline the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge has already been duly noted. United State District Judge Garland E. Burrell has been randomly assigned to this action.1 (Doc. No. 9.) Accordingly, petitioner's request for reassignment will be denied as moot. ORDER No. CIV S-10-0968 GEB DAD P

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
DAD:sj garc0968.mots(2)

Second, on August 11, 2010, petitioner filed a motion requesting that his "pleadings be interpreted more liberally." The court is well-aware that "[a] document filed pro se is `to be liberally construed,' . . . however inartfully pleaded, [and] must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)); see Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 878 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Pro se habeas petitioners may not be held to the same technical standards as litigants represented by counsel."). Accordingly, petitioner's request will be denied as unnecessary. CONCLUSION In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's August 2, 2010 motion for the reassignment of this case (Doc. No. 21) is denied as moot; and 2. Petitioner's August 11, 2010 motion for his pleadings to be interpreted more liberally (Doc. No. 23) is denied as unnecessary. DATED: August 13, 2010.

2