(HC) Pritchett v. King ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE PRITCHETT, No. 1:12-cv-1333-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO GRANT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE 15 AUDREY KING, Executive Director, [Doc. 24] 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is committed pursuant to the Sexual Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”) and is 19 proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On 20 November 1, 2013, the District Court abstained from the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to 21 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40-45 (1971), and dismissed the petition without prejudice. (Doc. 22 22.) Judgment was entered the same date, and the case was closed. (Doc. 23.) 23 On October 15, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 24.) 24 Petitioner states that state proceedings have concluded. He notes that the California Court of 25 Appeal affirmed judgment of commitment on July 23, 2020, and the California Supreme Court 26 denied review on September 30, 2020. (Doc. 24.) Petitioner asks that the Court address the 27 28 1 merits of his remaining claim.1 Insofar as state proceedings have now concluded, and in the 2 interest of judicial efficiency, the Court will recommend that the case be reopened for 3 consideration of the remaining claim. The Court notes that Respondent briefed the claim on the 4 merits in its answer of April 18, 2013. However, in light of the length of time that has passed 5 since then, and case developments including the decisions rendered by the state courts on the 6 issue, the Court will recommend that the parties be directed to provide supplemental briefing on 7 the claim. 8 ORDER 9 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a new district judge to this case, as the district 10 court judge that was previously assigned to the case, District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, has 11 since retired. 12 RECOMMENDATION 13 The Court hereby RECOMMENDS that: 14 1) Petitioner’s motion to reopen the case be GRANTED; 15 2) The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to REOPEN the case; and 16 3) The parties be DIRECTED to provide supplemental briefing on the sole remaining 17 claim. 18 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 19 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 20 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 21 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written 22 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 23 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed 24 within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The 25 Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 26 //// 27 1 By order of the Court dated December 4, 2012, Grounds Two, Three, and Four were dismissed from the petition 28 without leave to amend, and the matter was ordered to proceed on the sole remaining claim. (Doc. 8.) 1 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Sheila K. Oberto 5 Dated: November 12, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28