Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-06126
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO, Case No. 24-cv-06126-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S RECENT 9 v. FILINGS

10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FOOTHILL- Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26 DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE 11 DISTRICT, et al.,

12 Defendants.

13 Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on August 29, 2024. Dkt. 1. Following 14 assignment of this action to the undersigned, all Parties consented to the jurisdiction of a 15 magistrate judge for all purposes. Dkt. 11 (Plaintiff’s consent filed 11/26/2024); Dkt. 13 16 (Defendants’ consent filed 12/16/2024). On April 8, 2025, the Court issued an order on 17 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions. Dkt. 24 - the “Order”. The Order sets a 18 deadline of May 8, 2025 for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies 19 identified in the Order. Id. at 34. Since the Order issued, Plaintiff has filed two items: (1) a 20 motion to stay the May 8, 2025 deadline set in the Order to allow Plaintiff time to seek review of 21 the Order by a District Judge “in the manner prescribed by Local Rule 72-2” (Dkt. 25 - the 22 “Motion to Stay”); and (2) a form stating that Plaintiff declines magistrate judge jurisdiction 23 (Dkt. 26). 24 Motion to Stay (Dkt. 25) 25 The Court STRIKES the Motion to Stay at Dkt. 25 because the procedure set forth in Local Rule 72-2 by which a District Judge may review a non-dispositive order of a magistrate 26 judge is not available in this case, where Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 27 1 Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge or a part- 2 time United States magistrate judge who serves as a full-time judicial officer may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry 3 of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court or courts he serves. 4 5 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a) (“When authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 6 a magistrate judge may, if all parties, consent, conduct a civil action or proceeding, including a 7 jury or nonjury trial”). Appeal from final judgment in such consent cases “may be taken to the 8 court of appeals as would any other appeal from a district court judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(c); 9 see also 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(3) (“Upon entry of judgment in any case referred under paragraph (1) 10 of this subsection, an aggrieved party may appeal directly to the appropriate United States court of 11 appeals from the judgment of the magistrate judge in the same manner as an appeal from any other 12 judgment of a district court”). 13 By contrast, the procedure set forth in Local Rule 72-2, upon which Plaintiff rests the 14 Motion to Stay, relates only to rulings by a magistrate judge on nondispositive matters referred by 15 the District Judge presiding over a case. Civ. L.R. 72-2; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). That 16 procedure is not available in “consent cases” such as this one. See Coston v. Rahimifar, No. 1:17- 17 cv-000765-HBK, 2021 WL 736217, at *1 (Feb. 25, 2021). Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s motion to stay. The May 8, 2025 deadline 18 for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint remains in place. 19 Purported Declination Form (Dkt. 26) 20 As outlined above, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge on 21 November 26, 2024. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff’s filing of a form on April 12, 2025 purporting to decline a 22 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction (Dkt. 26) does not comport with the law of the Ninth Circuit. Once 23 a magistrate judge obtains consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), the consent “can be withdrawn by 24 the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances 25 shown’ by any party.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 26 § 636(c)(4)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). Absent such circumstances and leave from the Court, 27 1 Should Plaintiff believe such circumstances exist, he may file a motion for leave to withdraw his 2 || consent by May 1, 2025. 3 ssketk 4 The Court encourages Plaintiff to seek free legal assistance from the Federal Pro Se 5 Program located in the San Jose courthouse. The Federal Pro Se Program will not represent 6 || Plaintiffin this action but can provide basic legal assistance at no cost. Plaintiff can schedule an 7 appointment by calling 408-297-1480 or emailing hsong@asianlawalliance.org. Plaintiff can find g more information about the Legal Help Center at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. The g || court also provides a free guide, “Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se 19 || Litigants,” which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of the case, including 11 discovery, motions and trial. Plaintiff can access the guide online (https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro- 12 se-handbook/) or in hard copy free of charge from the Clerk’s Office. 13 SO ORDERED. 14. || Dated: April 17, 2025

16 Sess yet SUSAN VAN KEULEN 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28