1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC VALENCIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01146-CDB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW CONSENT
14 MARCO MARTINEZ, et al., (Doc. 4)
15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 Plaintiff Eric Valencia is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff paid the $405.00 21 filing fee on October 2, 2024. See (Dkt. entry dated 10/02/2024). On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff 22 filed a form noticing his election to consent or decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 3). 23 No other parties have made an appearance. 24 On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed its “Request to Change Decision and Consent to use 25 of a Magistrate Judge,” which the Court construes as a motion to withdraw his consent to the 26 jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 4). Therein, Plaintiff “requests that this Court allows 27 [him] to change his decision in consenting to the use of a magistrate judge in this case.” (Id.). 28 On December 4, 2024, the Court acknowledged the pending motion and directed the Clerk 1 of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action for purpose of ruling on Plaintiff’s 2 motion. (Doc. 5). In so doing, the Court relied on Branch v. Umphenour for the proposition that 3 “[i]n the Ninth Circuit, ‘only a district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the 4 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under [28 U.S.C.] section 636(c).’” (Doc. 5 p. 1) citing (Branch 5 v. Umphenour, 936F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(4) (“The court may, for 6 good cause shown on is own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party, 7 vacate a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate judge under this subsection.”); see also Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 73(b)(3) (“On its own for good cause—or when a party shows extraordinary 9 circumstances—the district judge may vacate a referral to a magistrate judge under this rule.”)). 10 Upon further inquiry of the governing authority, and the reasons set forth below, the 11 undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of a 12 Magistrate Judge be granted. 13 II. CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 A party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to 15 proceed before an Article III judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993); Pacemaker 16 Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc), 17 cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984). This right can be waived, allowing parties to consent to trial 18 before a magistrate judge. Dixon, 990 F.2d at 479-80; Pacemaker, 725 F.2d at 542; 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(c)(1). Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference 20 can be withdrawn only by the district court, and only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or 21 under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.” Dixon 990 F.2d at 480 (quoting Fellman 22 v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1984)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 73(b). 24 “Good cause” and “extraordinary circumstances” are high bars that are difficult to satisfy. 25 Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994 at 1004. “Neither mere dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s 26 decisions, nor unadorned accusations that such decisions reflect judicial bias, will suffice.” Id. The 27 Ninth Circuit has recognized that this good cause or extraordinary circumstances requirement is 28 designed to prevent litigants from shopping between a magistrate and a district judge by, for 1 example, withdrawing consent because of “dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s decision.” 2 Samson Tug & Barge, Co. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Alaska Longshore Div., No. 3 3:20-CV-00108-TMB, 2022 WL 3212326, at *2 (D. Alaska Aug. 9, 2022). There is no absolute 4 right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge. 5 Dixon at 480. 6 However, in Gilmore, the Ninth Circuit held that “a party need not satisfy the good cause 7 or extraordinary circumstances standard provided in § 636(c)(4) in order to withdraw consent 8 before all parties have consented.” Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 2019) 9 (emphasis added). See, e.g., Richard-Bey v. Watrous, No. 1:21-cv-01482-GSA-PC, 2022 WL 10 3585515, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2022). The Ninth Circuit directed that in those instances, a 11 district court should use its discretion to determine a request to withdraw consent, and the court 12 noted that the majority of courts have allowed such withdrawal in similar cases. See, e.g., Osotonu 13 v. Ringler, No. CIV S-10-2964 DAD P, 2011 WL 1047730, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2011); 14 Bowman v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV S-07-2164 FCD KJM P, 2009 WL 799274, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 15 Mar. 23, 2009), aff'd on other grounds, 334 F. App'x 850 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Because this action has 16 not yet been reassigned to the [magistrate judge] for all purposes including trial, plaintiff may 17 withdraw his consent without demonstrating good cause or extraordinary circumstances”); Page v. 18 State of California, 1:06-cv-01409-LJO-DLB-PC, 2008 WL 3976933, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008). The 19 plaintiff in Gilmore filed the motion to withdraw consent in response to an unfavorable pretrial 20 ruling, but the court found that this alone did not compel a finding that plaintiff’s consent was 21 irrevocable for all later dispositive rulings. Gilmore, 936 F.3d at 863. 22 Interpreting the statutory text, the Ninth Circuit found that § 636(c) did not apply before all 23 parties had consented. See Parks v. Rohlfing, No. 215CV001505KJMCKD, 2019 WL 6683141, at 24 *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2019) (citing Gilmore, 936 F.3d at 63). Instead, the magistrate judge’s 25 authority at the time the plaintiff withdrew his consent was derived from § 636(b)(1)(A), where “a 26 judge [ ] designate[s] a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before 27 the court,” which does not require good cause or extraordinary circumstances to withdraw consent. 28 Id. 1 Here, Plaintiff Valencia moves to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 2 judge, filed on December 2, 2024. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff did not submit a fully executed “Decline” to 3 consent form with his motion. 4 Plaintiff is advised that withdrawal of his consent would not remove the assignment of a 5 Magistrate Judge to his case. If all parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the case will 6 be reassigned to the Magistrate Judge and the Magistrate Judge will decide all further matters. If 7 Plaintiff or any Defendant declines Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the District Judge will resolve all 8 dispositive matters and conduct the trial, if there is one.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC VALENCIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01146-CDB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. WITHDRAW CONSENT
14 MARCO MARTINEZ, et al., (Doc. 4)
15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 Plaintiff Eric Valencia is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff paid the $405.00 21 filing fee on October 2, 2024. See (Dkt. entry dated 10/02/2024). On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff 22 filed a form noticing his election to consent or decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 3). 23 No other parties have made an appearance. 24 On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed its “Request to Change Decision and Consent to use 25 of a Magistrate Judge,” which the Court construes as a motion to withdraw his consent to the 26 jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 4). Therein, Plaintiff “requests that this Court allows 27 [him] to change his decision in consenting to the use of a magistrate judge in this case.” (Id.). 28 On December 4, 2024, the Court acknowledged the pending motion and directed the Clerk 1 of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action for purpose of ruling on Plaintiff’s 2 motion. (Doc. 5). In so doing, the Court relied on Branch v. Umphenour for the proposition that 3 “[i]n the Ninth Circuit, ‘only a district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the 4 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under [28 U.S.C.] section 636(c).’” (Doc. 5 p. 1) citing (Branch 5 v. Umphenour, 936F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(4) (“The court may, for 6 good cause shown on is own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party, 7 vacate a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate judge under this subsection.”); see also Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 73(b)(3) (“On its own for good cause—or when a party shows extraordinary 9 circumstances—the district judge may vacate a referral to a magistrate judge under this rule.”)). 10 Upon further inquiry of the governing authority, and the reasons set forth below, the 11 undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of a 12 Magistrate Judge be granted. 13 II. CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 A party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to 15 proceed before an Article III judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993); Pacemaker 16 Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc), 17 cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984). This right can be waived, allowing parties to consent to trial 18 before a magistrate judge. Dixon, 990 F.2d at 479-80; Pacemaker, 725 F.2d at 542; 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(c)(1). Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference 20 can be withdrawn only by the district court, and only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or 21 under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.” Dixon 990 F.2d at 480 (quoting Fellman 22 v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1984)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 73(b). 24 “Good cause” and “extraordinary circumstances” are high bars that are difficult to satisfy. 25 Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994 at 1004. “Neither mere dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s 26 decisions, nor unadorned accusations that such decisions reflect judicial bias, will suffice.” Id. The 27 Ninth Circuit has recognized that this good cause or extraordinary circumstances requirement is 28 designed to prevent litigants from shopping between a magistrate and a district judge by, for 1 example, withdrawing consent because of “dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s decision.” 2 Samson Tug & Barge, Co. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Alaska Longshore Div., No. 3 3:20-CV-00108-TMB, 2022 WL 3212326, at *2 (D. Alaska Aug. 9, 2022). There is no absolute 4 right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge. 5 Dixon at 480. 6 However, in Gilmore, the Ninth Circuit held that “a party need not satisfy the good cause 7 or extraordinary circumstances standard provided in § 636(c)(4) in order to withdraw consent 8 before all parties have consented.” Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 2019) 9 (emphasis added). See, e.g., Richard-Bey v. Watrous, No. 1:21-cv-01482-GSA-PC, 2022 WL 10 3585515, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2022). The Ninth Circuit directed that in those instances, a 11 district court should use its discretion to determine a request to withdraw consent, and the court 12 noted that the majority of courts have allowed such withdrawal in similar cases. See, e.g., Osotonu 13 v. Ringler, No. CIV S-10-2964 DAD P, 2011 WL 1047730, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2011); 14 Bowman v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV S-07-2164 FCD KJM P, 2009 WL 799274, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 15 Mar. 23, 2009), aff'd on other grounds, 334 F. App'x 850 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Because this action has 16 not yet been reassigned to the [magistrate judge] for all purposes including trial, plaintiff may 17 withdraw his consent without demonstrating good cause or extraordinary circumstances”); Page v. 18 State of California, 1:06-cv-01409-LJO-DLB-PC, 2008 WL 3976933, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008). The 19 plaintiff in Gilmore filed the motion to withdraw consent in response to an unfavorable pretrial 20 ruling, but the court found that this alone did not compel a finding that plaintiff’s consent was 21 irrevocable for all later dispositive rulings. Gilmore, 936 F.3d at 863. 22 Interpreting the statutory text, the Ninth Circuit found that § 636(c) did not apply before all 23 parties had consented. See Parks v. Rohlfing, No. 215CV001505KJMCKD, 2019 WL 6683141, at 24 *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2019) (citing Gilmore, 936 F.3d at 63). Instead, the magistrate judge’s 25 authority at the time the plaintiff withdrew his consent was derived from § 636(b)(1)(A), where “a 26 judge [ ] designate[s] a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before 27 the court,” which does not require good cause or extraordinary circumstances to withdraw consent. 28 Id. 1 Here, Plaintiff Valencia moves to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 2 judge, filed on December 2, 2024. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff did not submit a fully executed “Decline” to 3 consent form with his motion. 4 Plaintiff is advised that withdrawal of his consent would not remove the assignment of a 5 Magistrate Judge to his case. If all parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the case will 6 be reassigned to the Magistrate Judge and the Magistrate Judge will decide all further matters. If 7 Plaintiff or any Defendant declines Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the District Judge will resolve all 8 dispositive matters and conduct the trial, if there is one. However, a party’s decision to decline 9 Magistrate Judge jurisdiction has no effect on the referral of a case to a Magistrate Judge made 10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302, for non-dispositive matters and for the issuance 11 of Findings and Recommendations on dispositive motions. 12 Here, like in Gilmore, no other party has appeared in the case or consented to Magistrate 13 Judge jurisdiction before Plaintiff filed his motion to withdraw consent. There is no evidence of 14 judge shopping, or that Plaintiff is reacting to a particular ruling he disagreed with. Therefore, the 15 undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent be granted. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Il. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, filed 4 on December 12, 2024 (Doc. 4), BE GRANTED; 5 2. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a new form noticing his election to consent or decline to 6 Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within 30 days of any order adopting these Findings and 7 Recommendations; and 8 3. This case shall therefore proceed with the district judge presently assigned and the 9 magistrate judge referred to the case. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days after 12 being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 13 | objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 14 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without leave 15 | of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. 16 | To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the 17 | record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the 18 | exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be disregarded 19 | by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 20 | 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the 21 | waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ) (2 Dated: _ December 9, 2024 | Vv “VL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28