(PC) Gray v. Khoo

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 DANA GRAY, No. 1:20-CV-01047-ADA-SAB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO 14 A. KHOO, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 117) — 16 — — 17 — 18 Plaintiff Dana Gray is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 29, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) The 20 following day, the court served new case documents on the Central California Women’s Facility, 21 where Plaintiff is housed. (Dock No. 5-4.) One of those documents was a “Consent/Decline of 22 U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” form accompanied by an explanation of what consent to 23 magistrate judge jurisdiction entails. (Doc. No. 4-1.) Neither party informed the court whether it 24 would consent or decline to magistrate judge jurisdiction until Plaintiff filed two Notices to the 25 Court of Plaintiff’s Consent to Magistrate Judge for Jury Trial on September 24, 2021 and 26 October 29, 2021. (Doc. No. 55, 56.) On June 20, 2022, defendants Song and Mitchell executed a 27 consent form through counsel. (Doc. No. 107.) The district judge, at the time, the Honorable Dale 28 Drozd, subsequently reassigned the case to Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone for all purposes 1 including trial and entry of judgment. (Doc. No. 108.) On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion 2 to withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction for the purposes of all pre-trial dispositive 3 motions. (Doc. No. 117.) The magistrate judge referred this motion to the undersigned pursuant to 4 Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2019). 5 I. 6 Legal Standard 7 Litigants in federal court are entitled to have their cases determined by Article III district 8 judges. Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541 (9th 9 Cir. 1984). In certain circumstances, magistrate judges assist district judges in the administration 10 of pre-trial matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Magistrate judges, however, do not have 11 jurisdiction to make final determinations regarding dispositive motions – for instance, motions to 12 dismiss or motions for summary judgment. Id. at § 636(b)(1)(A). District judges may designate 13 magistrate judges to handle dispositive pre-trial motions in the first instance, but the district judge 14 must conduct a de novo review of any findings and recommendations the magistrate judge issues. 15 Id. at § 636(b)(1). When both parties consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, however, 16 they forfeit their right to review by the district judge. See Branch, 936 F.3d at 1001 ; 28 U.S.C. § 17 636(c)(1). The district court can vacate consent to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under two 18 circumstances: (1) on the court’s own motion for good cause shown; or (2) on motion by a party 19 demonstrating extraordinary circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(4). 20 III. 21 Discussion 22 A. Plaintiff never consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction for the purposes of 23 pre-trial dispositive motions. 24 In her motion to withdraw consent, plaintiff asserts that she believed she had consented to 25 the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction only for trial. After reviewing the docket, the court agrees with 26 plaintiff that she never consented to the magistrate judge for the purposes of pre-trial dispositive 27 motions. The consent form that the court provided to plaintiff at the outset of these proceedings 28 included the following language: 1 In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. 636(c)(1), the undersigned hereby voluntarily consents to have a United States 2 Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment, with direct review by the 3 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the event an appeal is filed. 4 Plaintiff, however, did not sign this consent form. Instead, plaintiff provided typewritten, 5 personalized notices specifically consenting to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction for the purposes 6 of trial only. (Doc. No. 55, 56.) The undersigned, therefore, believes that this matter was 7 reassigned to the magistrate judge in error. While the magistrate judge has consent to conduct the 8 trial that may occur in this matter, the undersigned is still required to review findings and 9 recommendations on any pre-trial dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). 10 B. The undersigned will not disturb the magistrate judge’s reconsideration of plaintiff’s 11 motion to substitute (Doc. No. 116). 12 On March 3, 2022, plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification requesting the magistrate 13 judge to permit plaintiff to sue defendants Mitchell and Song in their official capacities. (Doc. 14 No. 66.) The magistrate judge denied this motion. (Doc. No. 70.) On March 16, 2022, plaintiff 15 filed objections to the magistrate’s ruling. (Doc. No. 73.) The magistrate judge construed these 16 objections as a motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff’s request. (Doc. No. 116.) This 17 order granting plaintiff’s motion was filed seven days after Judge Drozd reassigned the matter to 18 the magistrate judge for all purposes, and three days before plaintiff filed the motion to withdraw 19 consent. Plaintiff’s motion discusses the magistrate judge’s initial denial (Doc. No. 70) as a basis 20 for withdrawing consent. Given the timing of plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent, however, it 21 seems likely that plaintiff was not aware of the magistrate judge’s ruling on the motion for 22 reconsideration, which granted plaintiff’s initial request. At this time, therefore, the undersigned 23 will not disturb the magistrate judge’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 III. 2 Conclusion 3 The order reassigning this matter for all purposes to the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 108) is 4 | vacated in part. The magistrate judge will retain jurisdiction over trial and entry of judgment in 5 | this matter. The undersigned, however, retains jurisdiction to review, de novo, the magistrate 6 || judge’s findings and recommendations on any pre-trial dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 | § 636(b)(1). — 8 — — 9 — 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: _ September 23, 2022 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —