(PC) Thomas v. Ware

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 10, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00177
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL THOMAS, No. 2:22-cv-0177-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff moves to rescind his consent to the magistrate judge’s 19 jurisdiction. ECF No. 11. Because this action has not yet been reassigned to the undersigned for 20 all purposes including trial, plaintiff may withdraw his consent without demonstrating good cause 21 or extraordinary circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th 22 Cir. 1993) (“Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference 23 can be withdrawn by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under 24 extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.’”). Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the 25 court will grant plaintiff’s request to rescind his consent, and his consent to the jurisdiction of the 26 undersigned magistrate judge will be deemed withdrawn. Nevertheless, under Local Rule 27 302(c)(17), the undersigned will continue to issue orders on non-dispositive motions and findings 28 and recommendations on dispositive motions. ] Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the court will grant plaintiffs motion to rescind his 2 | consent (ECF No. 11) and direct the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a United States 3 | District Judge to this action. 4 So ordered. 5 | Dated: March 10, 2022. 6 □□ PDEA 8 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28