(HC) Iseli v. Warden

E.D. California

(HC) Iseli v. Warden

DecidedOctober 4, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-01934

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Iseli v. Warden ((HC) Iseli v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Iseli v. Warden, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:24-cv-01934 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 19, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 4. Petitioner filed a 23 response to the findings and recommendations and requested the matter be transferred to the 24 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorization to proceed with a second or successive 25 application for habeas relief. See ECF No. 6. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court HEREBY 28 ORDERS as follows: ] 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice as second or successive; 2 2. Inthe interests of justice, plaintiffs request to transfer the petition to the Ninth Circuit is 3 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3; see also Amity Rubberized Pen 4 Co. v. Mkt. Quest Group Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting the Ninth Circuit 5 “has taken a broad view of when transfer is appropriate”). 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to transfer all original documents to 7 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk is also directed to send petitioner a copy of 8 Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3 and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Form 12. Petitioner is 9 advised that this transfer does not constitute compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and 10 Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3. 11 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 12 | DATED: October 4, 2024.

14 . □□□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:24-cv-01934 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 19, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 4. Petitioner filed a 23 response to the findings and recommendations and requested the matter be transferred to the 24 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorization to proceed with a second or successive 25 application for habeas relief. See ECF No. 6. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court HEREBY 28 ORDERS as follows: ] 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice as second or successive; 2 2. Inthe interests of justice, plaintiffs request to transfer the petition to the Ninth Circuit is 3 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3; see also Amity Rubberized Pen 4 Co. v. Mkt. Quest Group Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting the Ninth Circuit 5 “has taken a broad view of when transfer is appropriate”). 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to transfer all original documents to 7 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk is also directed to send petitioner a copy of 8 Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3 and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Form 12. Petitioner is 9 advised that this transfer does not constitute compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and 10 Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3. 11 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 12 | DATED: October 4, 2024.

14 . □□□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Iseli v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-iseli-v-warden-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack