Jamison v. Gummi et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/20/14 denying 45 Motion to recall his consent to the magistrate judge. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMY L. JAMISON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-01705 AC P

v.

ORDER

SAMBRAJYA PALAGUMMI,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S. § 1983.

18

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to recall his consent to allow the magistrate judge to

19

oversee all further proceedings. ECF No. 46.

20

I.

Procedural History

21

On August 23, 2013, just four days after the instant civil rights action was commenced,

22

plaintiff filed an election regarding consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge in accordance

23

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 6. The

24

election document was a form containing notice to the parties that they could voluntarily consent

25

to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in the case,

26

including dispositive matters and entry of final judgment. Id. However, it was further stated that

27

if a party declines to consent a Magistrate Judge would continue to perform all duties as required

28

by Eastern District Local Rule 302. Id. In the portion of the form in which plaintiff was directed
1

1

to check the box indicating his decision regarding consent, plaintiff signed his name underneath

2

the statement indicating that “[t]he undersigned hereby voluntarily consents to have a United

3

States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case.” Id.

4

II.

5

Motion to Withdraw Consent
Plaintiff alleges in his motion that he suffers from bipolar disorder and depression and that

6

he did not fully understand what consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all further

7

proceedings meant. ECF No. 45 at 1-2. He requests that the case be assigned to a district judge

8

for a jury trial and that he be appointed counsel due to his mental health status. Id.

9

III.

10

Analysis
Once a civil case is referred to a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the reference

11

can be withdrawn only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary

12

circumstances shown by any party.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480

13

(9th Cir. 1993) (stating that “[t]here is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to

14

trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.”). A referral to a magistrate judge will not

15

be vacated where a party has consented in a signed writing to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the

16

party fails to make a motion to vacate the reference that is supported by a showing of

17

extraordinary circumstances, and the Court does not sua sponte find good cause for withdrawal of

18

consent. Id.

19

Here, the Court finds that plaintiff’s consent to the jurisdiction of a United States

20

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final

21

judgment, by manifesting his express consent in writing is binding. No good cause for

22

withdrawal of consent appears on the basis of plaintiff’s motion. Nowhere in his motion does

23

plaintiff explain how his mental health condition affects or limits his understanding of written

24

documents or his ability to make decisions for himself. Under the circumstances, the Court

25

concludes that plaintiff has not established good cause to withdraw his consent to magistrate

26

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d at 480.

27
28

To the extent that plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel on the same grounds, the
court denied plaintiff’s subsequent motion to appoint counsel by an order entered on June 4,
2

1

2014. ECF No. 52. Therefore, this earlier-filed request is moot in light of the subsequent court

2

order denying the same.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to recall his consent to

4

the magistrate judge (ECF No. 45) is denied.

5

DATED: June 20, 2014

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3