Butler v. Moon et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying Motion to Withdraw Consent signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/05/2012. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MAURICE F. BUTLER, 1:09-cv-02074-MJS-PC 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT v. JONG YEOUNG MOON, et al. (ECF No. 30) 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Maurice F. Butler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 18 2009, Plaintiff consented in writing to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9.) On June 19 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court, indicating that he wanted to decline his 20 consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 30.) The Court will construe this as a 21 motion seeking to withdraw consent. 22 Once a civil case is referred to a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the 23 reference can be withdrawn only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under 24 extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th 25 Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). 26 Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause or extraordinary circumstances. 27 Plaintiff has only filed a form indicating that he wishes to decline his consent to jurisdiction 28 by a Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff does not provide any information as to why there is good 1 1 cause or extraordinary circumstances that would justify the withdrawal of his consent and 2 the referral of this case to a Magistrate Judge. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion is HEREBY DENIED. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: ci4d6 July 5, 2012 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?