(HC) King v. Schuyler ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jesse Stephen King, No. 2:23-cv-02360-KJM-SCR 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. Charles Schuyler, 1S Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Jesse Stephen King has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 18 | 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge under this District’s 19 | Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(17). In March 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued an order 20 | (1) instructing petitioner to pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed application to 21 | proceed in forma pauperis, (2) denying petitioner’s request for a transfer to a court in San Diego 22 | and (3) dismissing the petition with leave to amend for failure to comply with Rule 2 of the Rules 23 | Governing Section 2254 Cases. See generally Order (Mar. 8, 2024), ECF No. 13. Petitioner has 24 | since filed several “objections” to that order. See ECF Nos. 15-17. The court construes these 25 | objections as motions for reconsideration by the district judge and exercises its discretion to 26 | consider them despite the passage of the relevant filing deadline. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(c). 27 When a district judge is asked to reconsider a matter delegated to a magistrate judge, the 28 | district court decides whether the order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 1 | § 636(b)(1)(A); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). These two standards, “clearly erroneous” and 2 | “contrary to law,” apply to different aspects of the magistrate judge’s order. The “contrary to 3 | law” standard applies to legal determinations. See, e.g., Computer Econ., Inc. vy. Gartner Grp., 4 | Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999). The district court exercises its “independent 5 | judgment with respect to a magistrate judge's legal conclusions.” /d. The “clearly erroneous” 6 | standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual determinations and discretionary decisions. See 7 | id. (citing Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990)). This standard is more 8 | deferential. A decision is “clearly erroneous” if the district court “is left with the definite and 9 | firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr. 10 | Laborers Pension Tr., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 11 | 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). 12 Petitioner has not shown the Magistrate Judge’s order in this case was clearly erroneous or 13 | contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined petitioner should have the 14 | opportunity to file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate 15 | Judge also correctly found the record did not show, at that point, whether this district is the proper 16 | venue. Nor did the Magistrate Judge err in concluding the original petition did not set forth facts 17 | supporting each of the grounds for relief under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 18 | Cases. 19 The objections at ECF Nos. 15-17, construed as motions for reconsideration by the 20 | district court, are denied. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: October 3, 2024. lV) °° NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE