Parks v. Rolfing et al

Filing 120

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/11/19 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court is directed to re-assign District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller to this matter. Within 10 days of the filing of this order, defendants may respond to plaintiff's 117 motion for extension of time. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH WAYNE PARKS,

12
13

No. 2:15-cv-1505 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

14

JEFFREY ROHLFING, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Shortly after initiating this case, plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF

20

No. 4.) After defendants were served, they declined magistrate judge jurisdiction and a district

21

judge was assigned to this case. (ECF Nos. 44, 46.) On August 4, 2017, after counsel was

22

appointed to represent plaintiff, the parties filed a joint status report which stated that plaintiff

23

would “likely agree” to magistrate judge jurisdiction while defendants stated they did not have

24

authority to agree to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 61 at 3, ¶ 10.) Two months later,

25

the parties submitted another joint status report in which the parties reversed their positions on

26

magistrate judge jurisdiction, with plaintiff stating that he would not agree to the case being tried

27

before a magistrate judge and defendants stating that they would “likely agree” to a jury trial

28

before the undersigned. (ECF No. 69-1 at 3, ¶ 8.) Defendants subsequently consented to
1

1

magistrate judge jurisdiction (ECF No. 82) and the case was reassigned and referred to the

2

undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment (ECF No. 84).

3

The same day this case was reassigned to the undersigned, plaintiff filed a notice declining

4

magistrate judge jurisdiction and a declaration from counsel requesting that the reassignment to

5

the undersigned by vacated. (ECF Nos. 85, 86.) The notice declining magistrate judge

6

jurisdiction and declaration were construed as a request to revoke consent, which was denied by

7

the undersigned because plaintiff did not show good cause or extraordinary circumstances for the

8

withdrawal of his consent. (ECF No. 88 at 11-13.) Despite the denial of the request to withdraw

9

consent, the case was referred back to the District Judge in order to properly dismiss one

10

defendant and to give a newly added defendant an opportunity to consent to or decline magistrate

11

judge jurisdiction. (Id. At 13.) Shortly thereafter, plaintiff moved to vacate the referral to the

12

undersigned (ECF No. 91), and while the motion was pending the newly served defendant filed

13

her consent (ECF No. 97). The District Judge construed the motion to vacate as a motion to

14

withdraw consent and denied the motion for failure to demonstrate good cause or extraordinary

15

circumstances. (ECF No. 101 at 5-10.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration of

16

that order based on the recent opinions handed down by the Ninth Circuit in Branch v.

17

Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019) (district judge must rule on motion to withdraw

18

consent), and Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 2019) (showing of good cause or

19

extraordinary circumstances not necessary to withdraw magistrate judge consent before all parties

20

have consented). Defendants have not opposed the motion.
Because the motion for reconsideration relates to plaintiff’s attempts to withdraw his

21
22

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction and seeks reconsideration of the District Judge’s order, it

23

must be addressed by the District Judge. The case will therefore be re-assigned to District Judge

24

Kimberly J. Mueller for consideration of the motion for reconsideration.
Also before the court is plaintiff’s ex parte motion for an extension of the expert witness

25
26

deadline. (ECF No. 117.) Because plaintiff seeks to not only extend, but re-open discovery,

27

defendants will be given an opportunity to respond to the motion.

28

////
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-assign District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller to

3
4

this matter.
2. Within ten days of the filing of this order, defendants may respond to plaintiff’s

5

motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 117).

6

Dated: October 11, 2019

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9

13:park1505.refer

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