(PC) Valencia v. Martinez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ERIC VALENCIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01146-KES-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 7) 14 MARCO MARTINEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 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 On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff paid the $405.00 20 filing fee on October 2, 2024. See (Dkt. entry dated 10/02/2024). On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff 21 filed a form noticing his election to consent or decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 3). 22 No other parties have made an appearance. 23 On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Change Decision and Consent to use 24 of a Magistrate Judge,” which the Court construed as a motion to withdraw his consent to the 25 jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 4). Therein, Plaintiff “requests that this Court allows 26 [him] to change his decision in consenting to the use of a magistrate judge in this case.” (Id.). 27 On December 4, 2024, the Court acknowledged the pending motion and directed the Clerk 28 of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action for purpose of ruling on Plaintiff’s 1 motion. (Doc. 5). The Honorable District Judge Kirk E. Sheriff has been assigned to the case 2 and the new case number is 1:24-cv-01146-KES-CDB (PC). (Doc. 6). 3 On December 9, 2024, the Court entered findings and recommendations, recommending 4 the grant of Plaintiff’s construed motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate 5 Judge. (Doc. 7). The recommendation was based on governing authority and the fact that no 6 other party has appeared in the case or consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge before 7 Plaintiff filed his motion to withdraw consent. (Id. at 4); see Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 8 863 (9th Cir. 2019). The Court advised that Plaintiff could file objections to the findings and 9 recommendations within 14 days. (Id. at 5). 10 On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of clarification on the matter of his consent 11 or decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 8). Therein, Plaintiff clarifies that he 12 mistakenly believes he “declined consent to magistrate judge [jurisdiction] originally.” (Id.). 13 Plaintiff represents that on this belief, “[f]or judicial efficiency, Plaintiff submitted a motion to 14 consent to a magistrate judge, therefore changing from the declining Plaintiff was under the 15 impression Plaintiff originally made.” (Id.); (see Doc. 4). Plaintiff “simply wishes to 16 accept/consent to use of magistrate judge [jurisdiction] for judicial efficiency.” (Id.). 17 In light of Plaintiff’s most recent filing in which he clarifies he wishes to continue to 18 consent as indicated from the initial form he filed on October 7, 2024 (Doc. 3), the Court will 19 vacate the findings and recommendations (Doc. 7). 20 No further action is required by Plaintiff and his complaint will be screened by the Court 21 in due course. 22 23 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank 24 25 26 27 28 2 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s findings and 3 || recommendations issued on December 9, 2024 (Doc. 7) are VACATED. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ December 18, 2024 | Ww R~ 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28