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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?