Whether the referral to a magistrate was lawful given the district judge's admission of being 'wholly unable to handle civil matters

No question identified. : eo,» QUESTIONS 1. In light of CAED district judge’s admission that they are “wholly unable to handle civil matters and the district court’s order assigning this case to district judge “NONE”, was the ‘referral to a magistrate lawful? : 2. In light of the district judge’s ruling claiming ‘ ‘ that summary judgment is unavailable on : habeas; and who has otherwise failed to follow Se clearly established law; should this Court invoke its supervisory authority to prevent a : systemic abuse of discretion and/or complete miscarriage of justice? .Ts . 8. Is California Code of Civil Procedure §527.8, a ; _ statute which fails to include any useful _ standards to the situations which it applies, ’ void for vagueness? _ — 1 : i ; CORPORATE. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioners do not own more than ten percent of any publicly held corporation. . PROCEEDINGS AT ISSUE Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus a = Towers.t: Hamasaki a .. Ninth Cire..Case No. 21-16236 / Date of Reconsideration Order declining certificate: May 24, 2022, A18, infra: .. wt CAED Case No. . Towers v. Superior Court, County of Stanislaus ~ Ta addition, the background facts are directly related to a complaint for declaratory relief (9 Circ. Case ' #18-16712, Towers v. County of San Joaquin) and a complaint for damages (9th Circ. Case #19-16684 (Towers v. Myles). Legal issues related Article III jurisdiction are common. The time for direct appeal on these other cases has expired, but the validity of . ; these judgements will be requested to be set aside. A petition for writ of mandate is expected to be filed within two weeks of the filing of this Petition. | | ii