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)

Download PDF
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judge has been given, i.e., the case has been 4 “referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), reference can be withdrawn by the court 5 only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown 6 by any party.’”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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?