Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield

Opinion

TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01512-BAK (EPG) Plaintiffs, ORDER RECUSING JUDGE GROSJEAN AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN v. ANOTHER MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN FRESNO DIVISION CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN A Defendants. DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF RULING ON MOTION TO (ECF No. 87) Due to the elevation of Bakersfield Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston to District Judge, this case was temporarily referred to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (ECF No. 85.) Judge Grosjean previously participated in a settlement conference on September 23, 2021 (ECF No. 82), during which confidential information was imparted. The Court issued a minute order on January 19, 2022 regarding the reassignment and stating that Judge Grosjean intends to recuse herself from this case unless the parties waive the disqualification via a written stipulation. On January 20, 2022, Defendants City of Bakersfield and Officer Alejandro Patino (“Defendants”) filed a motion seeking to withdraw their consent, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case. (ECF No. 87.) This motion indicated to the undersigned that the Defendants would not waive disqualification. See L.R. 270(b); see also L.R. 240(a)(16). Accordingly, the undersigned recuses herself from all proceedings of the present action. Only a district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to assign another magistrate judge to the action and to assign a district judge to this action for the limited purpose of the disposition of Defendants’ motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction (ECF No. 87). Dated: _ January 21, 2022 [sf ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE