From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ackerman v. Martell

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 26, 2011
No. CIV S-11-0121-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-0121-CMK-P.

January 26, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole in 2008. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rules, this case was not assigned to a District Judge when the case was filed. The parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and the court now finds that assignment of a District Judge is necessary to properly address the case. Additionally, for reasons which will be discussed in separate findings and recommendations issued following assignment of a District Judge, the court finds it appropriate to vacate the order issued on January 21, 2011, directing respondent to respond to the petition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this case and to update the docket to reflect the new case number; and

2. The court's January 21, 2011, order directing a response (Doc. 3) is vacated.

DATED: January 25, 2011


Summaries of

Ackerman v. Martell

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 26, 2011
No. CIV S-11-0121-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011)
Case details for

Ackerman v. Martell

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ACKERMAN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTELL, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 26, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-11-0121-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011)