Thompson v. People of the State of California
Thompson v. People of the State of California
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DAMARCUS ANTHONY THOMPSON, Case No. 21-cv-08227-VKD
9 Petitioner, ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO A 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE
11 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 12 Respondent.
13 14 On October 21, 2021, Damarcus Anthony Thompson, proceeding pro se, filed a petition 15 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the sentence, as amended, 16 imposed by the Alameda County Superior Court upon his conviction for gross vehicular 17 manslaughter while intoxicated and other charges. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He later filed a motion for 18 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. Nos. 3, 5. 19 Mr. Thompson refers to a prior § 2254 petition he filed under Case No. 14-cv-05178. Dkt. 20 No. 1 at 7. In that case, he challenged his underlying conviction on two grounds. See Thompson 21 v. Fox, Case No. 14-cv-05178-LHK, Dkt. No. 24 at 1, 4. Accordingly, this action appears to be a 22 second or successive petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Because he is raising new claims, Mr. 23 Thompson must first obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit before this court may consider a 24 second or successive petition. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Because there is no indication that 25 he has done so, this action is subject to dismissal as a second or successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. 26 § 2244(b)(2). 27 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 1 Williams vy. King,
875 F.3d 500, 501-04(9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 2 || dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 3 magistrate judge). As it appears that this case requires a decision that disposes of the claims 4 || against some or all of the defendants at this time, and because not all parties have consented to 5 magistrate judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge. 6 Accordingly, the Clerk shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to the Court’s 7 Assignment Plan. 8 IT ISSO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: January 21, 2022 10 2 □ 11 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 12 United States Magistrate Judge
g 15 16
4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown