From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alley v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 8, 2008
No. CIV S-05-1921-LKK-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-1921-LKK-CMK-P.

May 8, 2008


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties are informed that they may, if all consent in writing, have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes while preserving their right to appeal any final judgment directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or, where appropriate, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), (3); see also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 73-305(a), (c). The parties are advised that they are free to withhold consent and that doing so shall not result in any adverse substantive consequences. See § 636(c)(2). If all parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the action will be reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See Local Rule 73-301 and Local Rule 73-305(b).

A review of the record reflects that no party to this action has filed a written election regarding consent to the exercise of full jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to provide the parties with the appropriate form which the parties shall then complete, indicating either consent or non-consent as they may choose, and file with the court.

Respondents' request for a stay of these proceedings pending issuance of the mandate in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), will be addressed separately and disposition of the request will not be affected by the parties' election regarding consent.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to all parties the court's "Notice of Availability of a Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction and Appeal Instructions" along with the accompanying consent election form; and

2. The parties shall complete and file the consent election form within 30 days of the date of this order.


Summaries of

Alley v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 8, 2008
No. CIV S-05-1921-LKK-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2008)
Case details for

Alley v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD L. ALLEY, Petitioner, v. TOM L. CAREY, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 8, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-05-1921-LKK-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2008)