1

RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

8

10 RICHARD I. FINE, Case No. CV09-07943 JFW (CW)

Petitioner,
11
NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT TO
12
vs. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS
13 U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CONSENTING IN A PREVIOUS
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF WRIT PETITION RESULTED IN A
14
CALIFORNIA, et al, DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND
15 Respondents. THE FILING OF THIS PETITION
16

17

18

19
Please take notice that Petitioner does not consent to a Magistrate Judge.
20

21 Irrespective of the local rule of this court requiring all pro se cases to be
22
heard before a Magistrate Judge, such rule results in a direct violation of due
23

24 process.
25

26 That violation is one of the bases of the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas
27
Corpus. In the case of Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, case no.
28

-1-
 1
CV-09-1914 JFW (CW), which was a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the
2 case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.
3

4 She immediately violated 28 U.S.C. § 2243 by not either granting the Writ
5
“forthwith” or issuing an order to show cause to the Respondent “forthwith”
6

7 ordering the Respondent “to show cause why the writ should not be granted.”
8
She waited 18 days from March 20, 2009 (when the Petition was filed), until
9

10
April 7, 2009, when she issued her order, which was not an “order to show
11
cause.”
12

13 When the Respondent Sheriff did not “show cause” and refused to answer
14
the Petition, she further violated 28 U.S.C. § 2243 by “directing” the LA
15

16 Superior Court and Judge David P. Yaffe (“Judge Yaffe”) to answer. She did
17
not have jurisdiction over the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe, and they were
18

19 not the “Respondent.” Further, they did not seek to intervene. She gave the LA
20
Superior Court and Judge Yaffe until May 1, 2009 to answer. This was beyond
21
the 20-day limitation set forth in Section 2243 for response, which would have
22

23 been April 27, 2009 for the Respondent if he could have shown “good cause.”
24

25 When the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe did not “show cause why the
26
writ should not be granted,” she then wrote a Report and Recommendation
27

28

-2-
 1
based upon nonexistent orders [March 18, 2009] and “facts” which she claimed
2 were in a “record,” facts which did not exist.
3

4 Her violations of Section 2243 form part of the basis for the instant Petition.
5
Those violations resulted in the unlawful incarceration of Petitioner, irrespective
6

7 of the other violations of the Respondent Sheriff, the LA Superior Court and
8
Judge Yaffe.
9

10
As of the date of this filing, Section 2243 has again been violated. The
11

12
present “Magistrate Judge” [Woehrle] has neither “granted” the Petition nor

13 issued an “order to show cause” to the Respondents U.S. District Court, Sheriff
14
Leroy D. Baca, LA Superior Court and Judge David P. Yaffe “to show cause
15

16 why the writ should not be granted.”

17

18 The present “Magistrate Judge” has already violated due process in this case.
19
The Petition states on its face that Petitioner was not consenting to a Magistrate
20

21
Judge; the Court should never have assigned this case to a “Magistrate Judge.”

22

23
The “Magistrate Judge” assignment must now be removed, and the writ

24 granted or an order to show cause issued with a three-day return as set forth in
25
Section 2243.
26

27

28

-3-
 1
The District Court has now unlawfully incarcerated Petitioner for eight
2 months. This unlawful incarceration is due to the direct and deliberate violation
3
of law by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. She was not exercising “judicial
4

5 discretion” or deciding judicial questions, she was violating Section 2243. She
6
knew that she was violating Section 2243. She knew that she was unlawfully
7

8 keeping Petitioner incarcerated by her deliberate violation of Section 2243.

9
These were not “judicial acts” of deciding a case. These were acts violating the
10
law, aimed at depriving Petitioner of his liberty.
11

12
These same acts are now occurring in this case.
13

14
For these reasons, Petitioner does not consent to Magistrate Judge Carla
15

16 Woehrle in this case.

17

18 ///
19
///
20

21
///

22 ///
23
///
24

25 ///
26
///
27

28 ///

-4-
 1
Dated this _____ day of November, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
2

3 BY: ___________________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
4
In Pro Per
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4

5
I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho
6 Dominguez, CA 90220.
7 On November ___, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as
8 NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS
9 CONSENTING IN A PREVIOUS WRIT PETITION RESULTED IN A
10 DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND THE FILING OF THIS PETITION on
11 interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was
12
enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States
13
Mail, addressed as follows:
14
Aaron Mitchell Fontana Kevin M. McCormick
15 Paul B. Beach BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM
LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 39 N. California Street
16 100 West Broadway, Ste. 1200 P.O. Box 1178
Glendale, CA 91210-1219 Ventura, CA 93002
17

18 I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
19 States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
20 correct.
21 Executed on this _____ day of November, 2009, at Rancho Dominguez,
22
California.
23

24
____________________________________
25 FRED SOTTILE
26

27

28

-6-