Olic v. Lizaraga

Filing 57

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/7/16 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed March 25, 2016, are not adopted; and Respondent's motion to dismiss, filed July 17, 2015 (ECF No. 32 ), is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of Nettles v. Grounds, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 4072465 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en banc). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MILROD OLIC,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2120 KJM GGH P

v.

ORDER

WARDEN JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as

19

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

20
21

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed objections to the

23

findings and recommendations, and respondent has filed a reply.1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24
25

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court declines to

26

1

27
28

On April 18, 2016, petitioner filed a reply to respondent’s reply to petitioner’s objections. ECF
No. 55. Neither the findings and recommendations, nor 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), nor Local Rule 304
authorize the filing of a reply to a reply in this context, and petitioner’s reply has not been
considered by the court.
1

1

adopt the findings and recommendations at this time. Instead, the matter will be referred back to

2

the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of the recent en banc decision in

3

Nettles v. Grounds, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 4072465 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en banc).

4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 25, 2016, are not adopted; and

6

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed July 17, 2015 (ECF No. 32), is referred back to

7

the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of Nettles v. Grounds, ___ F.3d

8

___, 2016 WL 4072465 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en banc).

9

DATED: September 7, 2016

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2