(PC) Baker v. Lynch

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Timothy Ray Baker, No. 2:19-cev-02617-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. J. Howard, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 After determining each of the parties had filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate 18 | judge, this court reassigned and referred the case to a magistrate judge for all further proceedings 19 | im accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Prior Order, ECF No. 62. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff 20 | Timothy Baker filed a form declining consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Decline 21 | Consent, ECF No. 63. The court construes the form as a motion to withdraw consent. “[O]nly a 22 | district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.” 23 | Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019). Therefore, the court retains 24 | jurisdiction for the limited purpose of ruling on the motion to withdraw consent and denies the 25 | motion. 26 “Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference can 27 | be withdrawn by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary 28 | circumstances shown by any party.’” Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing

1 | 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and Fellman v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2 | 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1984)). In civil cases there is “no absolute right” to withdraw consent to 3 | the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. See id. 4 Here, plaintiff does not provide any explanation as to why he now declines consent; 5 | plaintiff has not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the motion to 6 | withdraw consent is denied. The matter is reassigned and referred back to the magistrate Judge 7 | for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment. 8 This order resolves ECF No. 63. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: August 10, 2023. 1] CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE