Andrew J. Johnston v. B. Hudson, Warden

D. Arizona

Andrew J. Johnston v. B. Hudson, Warden

DecidedJanuary 9, 2026

Docket4:25-cv-00164

StatusUnknown

This text of Andrew J. Johnston v. B. Hudson, Warden (Andrew J. Johnston v. B. Hudson, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrew J. Johnston v. B. Hudson, Warden, (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Andrew J. Johnston, No. CV-25-0164-TUC-SHR (EJM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v. 12 B. Hudson, Warden, 13 Respondent. 14 Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Strike Referral to Magistrate 15 Judge and Lift Stay (Doc. 23). 16 As an initial matter, Petitioner argues "the Court referred this action to the 17 magistrate judge without [P]etitioner's written consent." Citing Aldrich v. Bowen, 130 F.3d 18 1364 (9th Cir. 1997), Petitioner asserts consent of the parties is required for the magistrate 19 judge's jurisdiction. Aldrich recognizes a magistrate judge must have written consent of 20 the parties to enter judgment in a civil case. Id. at 1364–65; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 21 (stating "[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . 22 may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of 23 judgment in the case"). In the instant case, however, this Court designated Magistrate 24 Judge Markovich "to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court" and 25 to submit a report and recommendation on the "petition[] challenging conditions of 26 confinement" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); LRCiv 72.1(c), 27 72.2(a)(2). Consent of the parties is not required for such a referral. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 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 5 || case while awaiting a determination in a parallel case in the same court). 6 IT IS ORDERED Petitioner's Motion to Strike Referral to Magistrate Judge and Lift Stay (Doc. 23) is DENIED. 8 Dated this 9th day of January, 2026. 9 10 □ /)

12 Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Andrew J. Johnston, No. CV-25-0164-TUC-SHR (EJM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v. 12 B. Hudson, Warden, 13 Respondent. 14 Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Strike Referral to Magistrate 15 Judge and Lift Stay (Doc. 23). 16 As an initial matter, Petitioner argues "the Court referred this action to the 17 magistrate judge without [P]etitioner's written consent." Citing Aldrich v. Bowen, 130 F.3d 18 1364 (9th Cir. 1997), Petitioner asserts consent of the parties is required for the magistrate 19 judge's jurisdiction. Aldrich recognizes a magistrate judge must have written consent of 20 the parties to enter judgment in a civil case. Id. at 1364–65; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 21 (stating "[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . 22 may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of 23 judgment in the case"). In the instant case, however, this Court designated Magistrate 24 Judge Markovich "to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court" and 25 to submit a report and recommendation on the "petition[] challenging conditions of 26 confinement" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); LRCiv 72.1(c), 27 72.2(a)(2). Consent of the parties is not required for such a referral. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 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 5 || case while awaiting a determination in a parallel case in the same court). 6 IT IS ORDERED Petitioner's Motion to Strike Referral to Magistrate Judge and Lift Stay (Doc. 23) is DENIED. 8 Dated this 9th day of January, 2026. 9 10 □ /)

12 Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Andrew J. Johnston v. B. Hudson, Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-j-johnston-v-b-hudson-warden-azd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack