Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Madden, 1:18-cv-01576-AWI-JDP (HC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191002g31 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ECF Nos. 17, 24 ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Petitioner William J. Jones, a state prisoner represented by counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On August 6, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant respondent's motion to dismiss the habeas corpus petition, but grant petitioner leave
More

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

ECF Nos. 17, 24

Petitioner William J. Jones, a state prisoner represented by counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 6, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant respondent's motion to dismiss the habeas corpus petition, but grant petitioner leave to amend to file a Section 1983 complaint. ECF No. 24. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that petitioner's motion to appoint counsel be denied as petitioner retained the services of attorney Marc Eric Norton in the interim. ECF No. 24. Attorney Norton filed a formal notice of appearance and an opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss on behalf of petitioner. ECF Nos. 18 and 19. No party has filed objections to the recommendation. Instead, petitioner (not Attorney Norton) has filed renewed motions to appoint counsel and an amended complaint. See ECF Nos. 25, 26, 27, and 28. Petitioner asserts that "Counsel [has] cease[d] to represent plaintiff, therefore plaintiff wish[es] to renew his motion." ECF No. 25. However, there has been no formal notice of the withdrawal of counsel.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

However, the mechanics of converting a habeas petition to a prisoner civil case will have to be resolved by the Magistrate Judge. Further, determining whether Attorney Norton still represents petitioner and whether the court should accept petitioner's amended complaint will have to be resolved by the Magistrate Judge. This case only remains open to allow for the possibility of conversion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on August 6, 2019, ECF No. 24, are adopted in full; 2. Respondent's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, is granted; 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 4. Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice; 5. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer