Bailey v. United States of America et al

Filing 27

ORDER that the 7/27/2017 Minute Order (Doc. 26 ) is VACATED. It is further Ordered that the assignment of this matter to the Magistrate Judge Eric. J. Markovich is CONFIRMED. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 8/10/2017. (MFR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Donald D. Bailey,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
United States of America, et al.,
12
Respondent.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 17-032-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

14

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 19, 2017. On March 17, 2017, a party

15

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction (Doc. 9). On April 10, 2017, another party

16

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. On that same date, the Clerk of Court issued a

17

Minute Order:

18
19

In accordance with 28 USC 636(c), all parties have voluntarily consented to have
Magistrate Judge Markovich conduct all further proceedings in this case, including
trial and entry of final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment proceedings, with
direct review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, if an appeal is filed.

20
4/10/2017 Minute Order (Doc. 15).
21
On July 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued an Order advising
22
Plaintiff of the applicable rules and possible consequences of the Motion to Dismiss
23
Defendant Lorie Hale. 7/25/2017 Order (Doc. 23).
24
The Court’s electronic filing system indicates that, on July 27, 2017, a party agreed
25
to magistrate judge jurisdiction (Doc. 24). On that same date, a party withdrew its consent
26
to magistrate judge jurisdiction (Doc. 25). The Clerk of Court issued a Minute Order:
27
28

Pursuant to Local Rule Civ 3.7(b), a request has been received for a random
reassignment of this case to a District Judge. Case reassigned by random draw to

1

District Judge, Cindy K Jorgenson. All further pleadings should now list the
following COMPLETE case number: CV17-32-TUC-CKJ.

2
7/27/2017 Minute Order (Doc. 26).
3
However, where consent to a magistrate judge has been given, i.e., the case has been
4
“referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), reference can be withdrawn by the court
5
only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown
6
by any party.’” Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). This case does not present
7
a situation where a party is simply trying to decide whether to consent to the magistrate judge
8
jurisdiction. See e.g. Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911 (2003). Rather, the
9
parties here “consented in writing to conduct all proceedings before the magistrate judge.”
10
Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480. Further, neither party has “file[d] a motion for leave to withdraw
11
his consent, nor did [any party] provide any reasons for the withdrawal.” Id. Indeed, there
12
“is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before
13
a magistrate judge.” Id.
14
As the Court is not aware of good cause to withdraw the reference to the magistrate
15
judge and neither party has shown extraordinary circumstances to support a withdrawal of
16
consent, the Court finds the acceptance of the withdrawal of consent to have been
17
inappropriate. Accordingly,
18
IT IS ORDERED:
19
1.

The July 27, 2017 Minute Order (Doc. 26) is VACATED.

2.

The assignment of this matter to the Magistrate Judge Eric. J. Markovich is

20
21
CONFIRMED.
22
DATED this 10th day of August, 2017.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-