Knapp v. Cate, et al.

Filing 135

ORDER GRANTING In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Adverse Orders of Magistrate Judges (Docs 125 , 126 & 131 ) ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 132 Motion to Stay Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/26/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01779-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM ADVERSE ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGES

v.
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

(ECF Nos. 125, 126, 131)
13

Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STAY SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14
15

(ECF No. 132)
/

16
17

I.

Procedural History

18

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney Knapp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

19

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

20

on the third amended complaint, filed September 29, 2010, against Defendants Koenig, Pate, Otto,

21

Backlund, Roberson, Clay, Gibb, Hannah, Semsen, Lyons, and Esquer for deliberate indifference

22

to Plaintiff’s need for single cell status in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On August 31, 2012,

23

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the rulings of the five Magistrate Judges that have

24

issued orders in this action prior to this action being reassigned to the undersigned on June 11, 2012,

25

based upon Defendants decision to decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 125.) On

26

September 20, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 126.)

27

On September 25, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and motion for

28

a protective order. (ECF No. 128, 129.) An order issued on September 26, 2012, staying the
1

1

discovery in this action, and requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary

2

judgment or a Rule 56(d) motion within thirty days. (ECF No. 130.) Plaintiff filed a reply to

3

Defendants’ opposition on September 27, 2012. (ECF NO. 131.) On October 18, 2012, Plaintiff

4

filed a motion to stay further proceedings on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.

5

132.) On October 23, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to stay further proceedings.

6

(ECF No. 133.)

7

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief

8

Plaintiff argues that his motion to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

9

judge was wrongly denied and moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to be relived

10

of the dispositive and nondispositive orders issued in this action prior to the reassignment to the

11

undersigned. (ECF Nos. 14, 18, 22, 26, 27, 33, 34, 40, 59, 60, 63, 72, 77, 83.1)

12

Plaintiff argues that he did not consent to any magistrate judge other than Judge Wunderlich.

13

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed this issue regarding the consent form used by this district in

14

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff returned the consent form in which he

15

checked the box that stated, “The undersigned voluntarily consents to have a United States

16

Magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case.” (ECF No. 5.) Although the wording

17

on the form stated that Judge Wunderlich had been randomly assigned to this action, that does not

18

limit the consent to the issuing judge. Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1118 n.4. Plaintiff’s consent did not

19

“retire” with Judge Wunderlich. Further, the Court fails to be persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that

20

he was coerced to consent because of the conditions of his confinement and he was proceeding pro

21

se. Plaintiff voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Plaintiff argues that

22

Judge Wunderlich did not have proper jurisdiction because none of the other parties to this action

23

had consented. However, no other parties had appeared in this action, and the magistrate judge’s

24

appropriately had jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s consent.

25

Plaintiff argues that his motion to withdraw his consent was inappropriately decided by the

26

Magistrate Judge. The undersigned shall consider the order issued denying Plaintiff’s motion to

27
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of these orders was denied on August 3, 2012. (ECF No. 121.)

2

1

withdraw his consent as a recommendation by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff argues “newly found

2

evidence” that Judge Wunderlich was censored for keeping a noose in his chambers. Plaintiff’s

3

stated facts concerning Judge Wunderlich do not show extraordinary circumstances entitling Plaintiff

4

to withdraw his consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). At the time Plaintiff’s motion was considered

5

Judge Wunderlich had retired from the bench and this action had been reassigned to Judge Austin.

6

Having carefully reviewed the file, the undersigned finds the recommendations of the Magistrate

7

Judge to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his

8

consent is denied.

9

III.

Motion to Stay Proceedings on Motion for Summary Judgment

10

Plaintiff requests that the Court stay Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until his

11

pending motions for reconsideration have been decided. Concurrently with this order, the Court has

12

issued an order on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the discovery order of the magistrate

13

judge.

14

Plaintiff also brings this motion on the ground that Defendants’ conduct is sanctionable under

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and states he is presenting Defendants with the opportunity to

16

withdraw the motion. Defendants reply that they will not withdraw the motion for summary

17

judgment and have a right to have the motion heard promptly to be spared the further burden and

18

expense of this litigation. The Magistrate Judge has reviewed Defendants’ motion and found that

19

the motion has merit and if granted will be dispositive of this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion

20

for a temporary stay is denied.

21

III.

Conclusion and Order

22

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from adverse orders of magistrate judge’s wrongly

24

adjudicating dispositive and nondispositive pretrial matters without parties proper

25

consent or review by Article III district judge, filed August 31, 2012, is DENIED;

26

2.

27

///

28

Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his consent, filed April 27, 2009, is DENIED; and

///
3

1

3.

2

Plaintiff’s motion to stay further proceedings on Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, filed October 18, 2012, is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated:
0m8i78

October 26, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4