Andrew J. Johnston v. B. Hudson, Warden

Opinion

WO Andrew J. Johnston, No. CV-25-0164-TUC-SHR (EJM) Petitioner, ORDER

v. B. Hudson, Warden, Respondent. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Strike Referral to Magistrate Judge and Lift Stay (Doc. 23). As an initial matter, Petitioner argues "the Court referred this action to the magistrate judge without [P]etitioner's written consent." Citing Aldrich v. Bowen, 130 F.3d 1364 (9th Cir. 1997), Petitioner asserts consent of the parties is required for the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. Aldrich recognizes a magistrate judge must have written consent of the parties to enter judgment in a civil case. Id. at 1364–65; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (stating "[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case"). In the instant case, however, this Court designated Magistrate Judge Markovich "to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court" and to submit a report and recommendation on the "petition[] challenging conditions of confinement" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); LRCiv 72.1(c), 72.2(a)(2). Consent of the parties is not required for such a referral. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). The Court will not withdraw the referral. 1 On October 22, 2025, Magistrate Judge Markovich issued an Order (Doc. 17) staying the instant case pending resolution of Johnston v. Gutierrez, No. CV-24-00005- TUC-SHR. For reasons of judicial economy, the stay will remain in effect. See Yong v. IN.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing the propriety of a stay in a habeas case while awaiting a determination in a parallel case in the same court). IT IS ORDERED Petitioner's Motion to Strike Referral to Magistrate Judge and Lift Stay (Doc. 23) is DENIED. Dated this 9th day of January, 2026. □ /)

Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge

_2-