Russell v. White
Filing
51
OPINION & ORDER: (1) DENYING respondent's 50 Emergency Motion to Stay discovery & enforcement; (2) respondent's 49 Objections to MJ's Order permitting limited discovery are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 4/24/15. (KJR)cc: COR
i!1astern .u1strICt ot Kentucky
FILED
APR 2 4 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
JASON ANTHONY RUSSELL,
Al LEXINGTON
ROBERT R. CARR
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-207-KKC
Petitioner,
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
RANDY WHITE, WARDEN,
Respondent.
*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on Respondent Randy White's emergency motion to
stay discovery and enforcement of (DE 50), and Respondent's Objections to (DE 49),
Magistrate Judge Wehrman's Memorandum Order ("Discovery Order") issued on April 8,
2015 (DE 47). The Discovery Order granted in part and denied in part Petitioner Jason
Russell's motion for discovery, narrowing his discovery request to focus on the particular
issue necessary for his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition to proceed-Petitioner's
competency after his state court conviction. (DE 47). A threshold issue, however, is that a
party cannot object and seek review from the district court judge of any orders issued by a
magistrate judge in a "referred petition" 1 before the magistrate enters proposed findings of
fact and a recommended disposition. Accordingly, the emergency motion will be denied and
the objections will be denied without prejudice.
I.
"In 1976, Congress amended§ 101 of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636,
to provide that a United States district judge may refer dispositive pretrial motions, and
1
For simplicity, the Court will describe a § 2254 petition for habeas corpus that a district court judge
has referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation as a "referred petition."
petitions for writ of habeas corpus, to a magistrate, who shall conduct appropriate
proceedings and recommend dispositions." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141-42 (1985)
(citing § 636(b)(l)(A) for the holding that pretrial motions may be referred to a magistrate
and citing § 636(b)(l)(B) for granting the power to refer § 2254 petitions to a magistrate).
Section 636(b)(l)(A) authorizes the referral of many pretrial matters and states that a
district court judge "may reconsider any pretrial matter ... where it has been shown that
the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Rule 72(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure implements § 636(b)(l)(A). Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7
F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 1993).
Section 636(b)(l)(B) authorizes a magistrate judge to "conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition" of petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Section
636(b)(l)(B)-and the accompanying provision describing the district court judge's oversight
of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation-"is implemented by Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Massey, 7 F.3d at 509. Rule 72(b) provides in relevant
part:
A magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required
proceedings when assigned .... A record must be made of all
evidentiary proceedings and may, at the magistrate judge's
discretion, be made of any other proceedings. The magistrate
judge must enter a recommended disposition, including, if
appropriate, proposed findings of fact .... Within 14 days after
being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a
party may serve and file specific written objections[,] ... [and
t]he district judge must determine de nova any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(l)-(3) (emphasis added).
2
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(4)(A) declares that the Federal
Rules apply to proceedings in § 2254 petitions to the extent that the Federal Rules are not
superseded by a federal statute or the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Rule 8(b) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases details the procedure for referring § 2254 petitions to a magistrate
judge and states that objections are to be filed "[w]ithin 14 days after" the magistrate issues
his "proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition."
II.
The Federal Magistrates Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases provide a cohesive framework for analyzing whether a party may
file objections to a magistrate judge's order in a "referred petition" before the magistrate
enters his report and recommendation. The Federal Magistrates Act grants district court
judges the power to refer § 2254 habeas corpus petitions to a magistrate judge, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l)(B), and this power is reiterated in Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254
Cases. Rule S(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure-the Federal Rule implementing § 636(b)(l)(B)-both declare that a party
must file any and all objections 14 days after the magistrate judge enters proposed findings
of fact and a recommended disposition. 2 Therefore, it is clear that the district court judge
cannot consider objections to a "referred petition" before the magistrate judge issues a
report and recommendation.
2 The Court is aware that the Advisory Committee Notes for the 1983 Addition of Federal Rule 72
declare that Rule 72(b) "does not extend to habeas corpus petitions;" however, the Court finds
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases to be
entirely consistent. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), with 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rules Governing § 2254
Cases, Rule 8(b). The consistency between these Rules further supports the conclusion that
interlocutory objections to nondispositive orders by a magistrate judge in a § 2254 petition may not
be considered by a district court judge.
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the Federal Rule requiring a district court
judge to consider timely objections to nondispositive pretrial matters referred to a
magistrate judge, does not apply to "referred petitions."
III.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Respondent's emergency motion to stay discovery and enforcement (DE 50) is
DENIED; and
2. Respondent's Objections (DE 49) to the Magistrate Judge's Order permitting
limited discovery in this case are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated April 24, 2015.
4
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?