Young v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/10/2020 ORDERING plaintiff's 72 objections to defendants' consent are construed as a motion to find that plaintiff's consent has lapsed or to withdraw consent. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNY GEROME YOUNG,

12

No. 2:15-cv-2604 KJM CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction

19

(ECF No. 8), while defendants declined magistrate judge jurisdiction on June 1, 2017 (ECF No.

20

36). On December 23, 2019, defendants filed a consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction (ECF No.

21

71), ostensibly resulting in the consent by all parties to magistrate judge jurisdiction. However,

22

plaintiff subsequently filed objections to defendants’ consent, arguing that “28 U.S.C. Section

23

636(c) does not authorize counsel for the defendants to embark on a ship that has sailed, and

24

Plaintiff opposes this untimely motion.” (ECF No. 72 at 1.) He further argues that he does not

25

believe that defendants are entitled to consent at this late stage and that “Plaintiff does not consent

26

any [sic] any event.”1 (Id. at 2.)

27
28

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement also states that he “would concede to a trial by the District Judge in
this matter.” (ECF No. 73 at 2.)
1
1

1

It appears that plaintiff is either attempting to claim that his consent lapsed2 or moving to

2

withdraw his consent. In either event, whether plaintiff’s consent remains valid is a question for

3

the District Judge. Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]nly a district

4

judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to defendants’

5
6

consent (ECF No. 72) are construed as a motion to find that plaintiff’s consent has lapsed or to

7

withdraw consent.

8

Dated: January 10, 2020

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12

13:youn2604.consent

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

2

In Branch v. Umphenour, plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, but defendants
initially declined and did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction until over seven years after
plaintiff had initially consented. 936 F.3d 994, 998, 1000 n.4 (9th Cir. 2019). The Ninth Circuit
indicated the possibility that a party’s consent could lapse if there is a significant passage of time
between the party’s initial consent and the consent of the other parties. Id. at 1000 n.4.
2