Knapp v. Arlitz et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING 43 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's September 16, 2014, Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/14/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ARLITZ, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00412-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014, ORDER
[ECF No. 43]

17

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K’Napp is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United

19

States Magistrate Judge on March 23, 2009. Local Rule 302.

20
21
22
23
24
25

On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the District Court to reconsider and vacate the
undersigned’s September 16, 2014, screening order.
Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on March 23, 2009.
Therefore, this action was assigned to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff previously filed a motion for reconsideration on the same grounds, which was denied
with prejudice on August 19, 2009. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.)

26

Plaintiff’s present motion for reconsideration must be denied. “The Federal Magistrate Act

27

provides that ‘[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States Magistrate Judge … may

28

conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the
1

1

case, when specially designed to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court.’” Wilhelm v. Rotman,

2

680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 585 (2003). In this

3

instance, Plaintiff unambiguously consented to the jurisdiction of “a United States Magistrate Judge”

4

by selecting the “consent” box on the court-provided form. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d at 1118.

5

The form advised Plaintiff that “[w]ithout the written consent of the parties presently appearing

6

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 636(c), a magistrate judge cannot conduct all proceedings and enter

7

judgment in this case with direct review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the event an appeal

8

is filed. If a party declines to consent and the case is assigned to a district judge, the assigned

9

magistrate judge shall continue to perform all duties as required by Eastern District Local Rule 72-

10

302.” (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff checked the box “consent” and signed and dated the form which

11

specifically stated “[t]he undersigned hereby voluntarily consents to have a United States Magistrate

12

Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case.” (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily

13

consented to jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d at 1118-

14

1119. Plaintiff’s continued disagreement with the Court’s screening order provides no basis for the

15

withdrawal of his earlier consent, and this case will remain assigned to the undersigned Magistrate

16

Judge.

17

Based on the foregoing,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

October 14, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2