Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 GILBERTO FAJARDO, Case No. 1:16-cv-00699-BAK 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ASSIGNING DISTRICT JUDGE DALE A. DROZD TO CASE FOR LIMITED 11 v. PURPOSE OF RULING ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT 12 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., (ECF No. 66) 13 Defendants. 14 15 On January 19, 2022, Defendants City of Bakersfield, Lindy DeGeare, and Juan Orozco 16 | (“Defendants”) filed a motion seeking to withdraw their consent, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 17 | 636(c)(1), to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case. 18 | (ECF No. 66.) 19 Only a district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge 20 | jurisdiction. Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019). 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed 22 | to reassign District Judge Dale A. Drozd to this action for the limited purpose of the disposition 23 | of Defendants’ motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction (ECF No. 66). IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 | Dated: _ January 20, 2022 □□□ hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28