Thompson v. People of the State of California
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-08227
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Thompson v. People of the State of California, Judge Demarchi reassigned the federal petition to a district judge because dismissal may be required.
Damarcus Anthony Thompson and the People of the State of California; the case was reassigned to a district judge, and the opinion did not decide the petition’s merits.
What happened
In Thompson v. People of the State of California, Damarcus Anthony Thompson, representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his sentence for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and other charges. He also asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The opinion says Thompson had filed an earlier related federal petition and that this case appeared to be a second petition raising new claims. Before the court could consider it, he apparently needed permission from the federal appeals court. The opinion did not decide whether the petition was allowed or dismiss the case.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge because the case might require a decision disposing of some or all claims, and not all parties had agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. People of the State of California · No. 3:21-cv-08227
- James Donato
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background Damarcus Anthony Thompson, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the sentence, as amended, imposed by the Alameda County Superior Court after his conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and other charges. He also filed a motion to proceed without paying filing fees.
Potential successive petition The opinion states that Thompson referred to an earlier related federal petition, identified by Case No. 14-cv-05178. The court said this action appeared to be a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Because Thompson was raising new claims, the opinion said he needed authorization from the Ninth Circuit before the district court could consider the petition. The court found no indication that he had obtained that authorization and said the action was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
Reassignment The order did not dismiss the petition. Instead, it held that reassignment was required because the case appeared to require a decision disposing of claims and not all parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court’s Assignment Plan.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.