Bolds v. Asuncion

Filing 9

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 8 Motion FROM JUDGMENT. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
WILLIE L. BOLDS,

9

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-02449-JSC

D. ASUNCION,

12

Re: Dkt. No. 8

Defendant.

13

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ

14
15

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his sentence.1 Upon initial review of the

16

petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court dismissed the petition

17

on the grounds that it does not state a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief.

18

Petitioner has filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal

19

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b)(1) provides for relief from judgment where the Court has

20

committed mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Petitioner argues that under 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a District Court Judge was supposed to make a de novo review of the

22

dismissal order, and a United States Magistrate Judge has “no authority to make a final and

23

binding disposition.” (ECF No. 8 at 2-3.) The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge had

24

the authority to dismiss the case and enter judgment because Petitioner consented to the

25

jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1);

26

Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (where a prisoner consents to a magistrate

27
1

28

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 3.)

1

judge's jurisdiction and upon initial review the magistrate judge dismissed the case because the

2

allegations in the complaint do not state a cognizable claim for relief, the defendants are not

3

parties to the action and their lack of consent does not deprive the magistrate judge of jurisdiction

4

to dismiss the complaint and enter judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)). Because of such consent,

5

moreover, the dismissal order is not reviewed by a United States District Judge under 28 U.S.C. §

6

636(b)(1)(B). Rather, Petitioner may obtain review by filing an appeal to the United States Court

7

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). Accordingly, the motion for relief

8

from judgment is DENIED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2016

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIE L. BOLDS,

Case No. 16-cv-02449-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

D. ASUNCION,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on October 14, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20

Willie L. Bolds ID: E-00865
CSP-Lancaster
P.O. Box 4430
Lancaster, CA 93539

21

22
23

Dated: October 14, 2016

24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
3