1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAUDA ILIYA, No. 2:22-cv-1305-KJM-CSK PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION CONTESTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 v. JURISDICTION 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (ECF No. 30.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Dauda Iliya, who proceeds without the aid of counsel, filed his complaint 18 in July 2022 against the County of Sacramento and three individual defendants. (ECF 19 No. 1 (Compl.).) Given that Plaintiff proceeds without counsel, the case was referred to 20 the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). Under the Local Rule referral, the magistrate 22 judge is to resolve all non-dispositive matters by order, and all dispositive matters by 23 findings and recommendations. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 24 contesting the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. (ECF No. 30.) 25 On January 31, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge held an initial scheduling 26 conference with Plaintiff and defense counsel. (ECF No. 17.) After this scheduling 27 conference, the magistrate judge issued a scheduling order for this case, requiring the 28 completion of fact discovery by September 13, 2023, expert discovery by November 13, 1 2023, and law and motion by April 9, 2024. (ECF No. 18 (2/1/2023 Pretrial Scheduling 2 Order).) On September 6, 2023— one week before the close of fact discovery— Plaintiff 3 filed a motion to extend the case deadlines, including discovery deadlines, for five 4 months, which Defendants did not oppose. (ECF Nos. 20, 22.) The magistrate judge 5 granted Plaintiff’s motion, extending the deadlines as follows: fact discovery completion 6 by February 13, 2024; expert discovery completion by July 12, 2024; and law and motion 7 filed by August 6, 2024 and heard by September 10, 2024. (ECF No. 23 (9/15/2023 8 Order Granting Pl. Extension of Time).) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that 9 “[f]urther extensions of time are unlikely to be granted without a showing of diligence on 10 the part of plaintiff in moving his case forward.” (Id.) 11 Five months later, on the date set for fact discovery completion (February 13, 12 2024), Plaintiff filed a second motion to extend the discovery deadlines for three months. 13 (ECF No. 25.) Defendants opposed the request (ECF No. 27) and Plaintiff submitted a 14 reply (ECF No. 28). The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s second request to extend 15 because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence. (ECF No. 29 (3/12/2024 Order Denying 16 Pl. Extension of Time).) After the Court’s denial, Plaintiff filed the underlying motion 17 contesting magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 30.) This case was subsequently 18 reassigned to the undersigned on April 2, 2024. (ECF No. 31.) 19 In the motion1, Plaintiff now contests the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge to 20 enter all prior orders, requesting “to nullify all prior proceedings and orders made by any 21 magistrate judge[.]” (ECF No. 30.) In his motion, Plaintiff focuses on the text of, among 22 other things, Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On April 10, 2024, 23 Defendants filed their opposition. (ECF No. 32.) 24 Local Rule 302(c)(21) refers all non-dispositive motions to a magistrate judge in 25 cases where all plaintiffs or all defendants are proceeding in propria persona. This local
26 1 It is significant to note that Plaintiff did not contest magistrate judge jurisdiction when 27 he participated in the initial scheduling conference with the magistrate judge, in response to the pretrial scheduling order issued by the magistrate judge, or after the magistrate 28 judge granted his first request for an extension of case deadlines. 1 rule is based on 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), which expressly authorizes the determination 2 of non-dispositive pretrial matters by a magistrate judge, and the Ninth Circuit has 3 consistently upheld this allocation of judicial resources. See S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, 4 Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1259 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] district judge may designate a magistrate 5 judge to hear any nondispositive pretrial matter pending before the court.”) (quoting 6 Estate of Conners ex rel. Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir.1993)); United 7 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (reminding that 8 “certain matters (for example, non-dispositive pretrial matters) may be referred to a 9 magistrate judge for decision, while certain other matters (such as case-dispositive 10 motions [and] petitions for writs of habeas corpus) may be referred only for evidentiary 11 hearing, proposed findings, and recommendations”); Agamerica v. Mann Farms, Inc., 12 211 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The district court violated neither 28 U.S.C. § 636, nor 13 the local rules, when it referred the case to a magistrate judge without the appellants’ 14 consent.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (magistrate judge to resolve non-dispositive 15 matters that are referred to the magistrate judge). 16 Plaintiff’s motion contesting magistrate judge jurisdiction is a non-dispositive 17 pretrial motion because its resolution does not dispose of any claims or issues in the 18 case, and as such, is properly decided by the undersigned. See, e.g., Dy v. Nale, 772 F. 19 App'x 558, 559 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting magistrate judge’s authority to enter the non- 20 dispositive transfer order because it does not dispose of a claim or defense) (citing Flam 21 v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2015)); Peck v. United States, 2011 WL 22 3876044, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2011) (construing pro se plaintiff’s motion concerning 23 the authority of the magistrate judge as one for recusal, and noting the magistrate 24 judge’s authority to resolve such a motion); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (noting the 25 kinds of dispositive matters not available for resolution by a magistrate judge without the 26 consent of the parties includes motions “for injunctive relief, for judgment on the 27 pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information 28 made by the defendant”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. 302(c)(21). 1 Here, all the prior proceedings before a magistrate judge and every order entered 2 | by a magistrate judge to date have been on non-dispositive pretrial matters, such as 3 || scheduling and the exchange of initial disclosures. (See Docket.) As such, all the prior 4 || proceedings before a magistrate judge and every order entered by a magistrate judge 5 || were properly within the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 6 | CMKM Diamonds, 729 F.3d at 1259; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1118; Turner v. Zepp, 7 | 2021 WL 4147141, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (noting case scheduling falls under the 8 | kinds of non-dispositive matters to be decided by the magistrate judge via order); Raiser 9 | v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAUDA ILIYA, No. 2:22-cv-1305-KJM-CSK PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION CONTESTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 v. JURISDICTION 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (ECF No. 30.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Dauda Iliya, who proceeds without the aid of counsel, filed his complaint 18 in July 2022 against the County of Sacramento and three individual defendants. (ECF 19 No. 1 (Compl.).) Given that Plaintiff proceeds without counsel, the case was referred to 20 the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). Under the Local Rule referral, the magistrate 22 judge is to resolve all non-dispositive matters by order, and all dispositive matters by 23 findings and recommendations. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 24 contesting the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. (ECF No. 30.) 25 On January 31, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge held an initial scheduling 26 conference with Plaintiff and defense counsel. (ECF No. 17.) After this scheduling 27 conference, the magistrate judge issued a scheduling order for this case, requiring the 28 completion of fact discovery by September 13, 2023, expert discovery by November 13, 1 2023, and law and motion by April 9, 2024. (ECF No. 18 (2/1/2023 Pretrial Scheduling 2 Order).) On September 6, 2023— one week before the close of fact discovery— Plaintiff 3 filed a motion to extend the case deadlines, including discovery deadlines, for five 4 months, which Defendants did not oppose. (ECF Nos. 20, 22.) The magistrate judge 5 granted Plaintiff’s motion, extending the deadlines as follows: fact discovery completion 6 by February 13, 2024; expert discovery completion by July 12, 2024; and law and motion 7 filed by August 6, 2024 and heard by September 10, 2024. (ECF No. 23 (9/15/2023 8 Order Granting Pl. Extension of Time).) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that 9 “[f]urther extensions of time are unlikely to be granted without a showing of diligence on 10 the part of plaintiff in moving his case forward.” (Id.) 11 Five months later, on the date set for fact discovery completion (February 13, 12 2024), Plaintiff filed a second motion to extend the discovery deadlines for three months. 13 (ECF No. 25.) Defendants opposed the request (ECF No. 27) and Plaintiff submitted a 14 reply (ECF No. 28). The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s second request to extend 15 because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence. (ECF No. 29 (3/12/2024 Order Denying 16 Pl. Extension of Time).) After the Court’s denial, Plaintiff filed the underlying motion 17 contesting magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 30.) This case was subsequently 18 reassigned to the undersigned on April 2, 2024. (ECF No. 31.) 19 In the motion1, Plaintiff now contests the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge to 20 enter all prior orders, requesting “to nullify all prior proceedings and orders made by any 21 magistrate judge[.]” (ECF No. 30.) In his motion, Plaintiff focuses on the text of, among 22 other things, Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On April 10, 2024, 23 Defendants filed their opposition. (ECF No. 32.) 24 Local Rule 302(c)(21) refers all non-dispositive motions to a magistrate judge in 25 cases where all plaintiffs or all defendants are proceeding in propria persona. This local
26 1 It is significant to note that Plaintiff did not contest magistrate judge jurisdiction when 27 he participated in the initial scheduling conference with the magistrate judge, in response to the pretrial scheduling order issued by the magistrate judge, or after the magistrate 28 judge granted his first request for an extension of case deadlines. 1 rule is based on 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), which expressly authorizes the determination 2 of non-dispositive pretrial matters by a magistrate judge, and the Ninth Circuit has 3 consistently upheld this allocation of judicial resources. See S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, 4 Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1259 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] district judge may designate a magistrate 5 judge to hear any nondispositive pretrial matter pending before the court.”) (quoting 6 Estate of Conners ex rel. Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir.1993)); United 7 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (reminding that 8 “certain matters (for example, non-dispositive pretrial matters) may be referred to a 9 magistrate judge for decision, while certain other matters (such as case-dispositive 10 motions [and] petitions for writs of habeas corpus) may be referred only for evidentiary 11 hearing, proposed findings, and recommendations”); Agamerica v. Mann Farms, Inc., 12 211 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The district court violated neither 28 U.S.C. § 636, nor 13 the local rules, when it referred the case to a magistrate judge without the appellants’ 14 consent.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (magistrate judge to resolve non-dispositive 15 matters that are referred to the magistrate judge). 16 Plaintiff’s motion contesting magistrate judge jurisdiction is a non-dispositive 17 pretrial motion because its resolution does not dispose of any claims or issues in the 18 case, and as such, is properly decided by the undersigned. See, e.g., Dy v. Nale, 772 F. 19 App'x 558, 559 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting magistrate judge’s authority to enter the non- 20 dispositive transfer order because it does not dispose of a claim or defense) (citing Flam 21 v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2015)); Peck v. United States, 2011 WL 22 3876044, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2011) (construing pro se plaintiff’s motion concerning 23 the authority of the magistrate judge as one for recusal, and noting the magistrate 24 judge’s authority to resolve such a motion); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (noting the 25 kinds of dispositive matters not available for resolution by a magistrate judge without the 26 consent of the parties includes motions “for injunctive relief, for judgment on the 27 pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information 28 made by the defendant”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. 302(c)(21). 1 Here, all the prior proceedings before a magistrate judge and every order entered 2 | by a magistrate judge to date have been on non-dispositive pretrial matters, such as 3 || scheduling and the exchange of initial disclosures. (See Docket.) As such, all the prior 4 || proceedings before a magistrate judge and every order entered by a magistrate judge 5 || were properly within the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 6 | CMKM Diamonds, 729 F.3d at 1259; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1118; Turner v. Zepp, 7 | 2021 WL 4147141, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (noting case scheduling falls under the 8 | kinds of non-dispositive matters to be decided by the magistrate judge via order); Raiser 9 | v. City of Temecula, 2022 WL 1837078, *2 (C.D. Cal April 28, 2022) (same); Alve v. 10 || Montgomery, 2014 WL 3950665, *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) (same); Olmos v. Ryan, 11 || 2012 WL 1580555, *4 (D. Az. May 4, 2012) (same); 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion regarding the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge 13 | (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. Within fourteen days after being served with this order, any 14 | “party may serve and file objections to the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A party may not 15 | assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” /d. The district judge reviews 16 | only timely objections and conducts its review under a clearly erroneous or contrary to 17 || law standard. /Id.; Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 19 | Dated: April 22, 2024 C i s \U UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 || 3, iliy.1305 23 24 25 26 27 28