The Eidex Family Partnership, L.P. v. Justice

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 15 Motion for NISI PRIUS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 11/24/08. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CARLVIN JUSTICE, Defendant. ___________________________________/ EIDEX FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P., Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NISI PRIUS (Docket No. 15) No. C-08-1173 EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

In February 2008, Defendant Carlvin Justice removed the instant case from state to federal court, see Docket No. 1 (notice of removal), and sought to proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket No. 2 (application). Subsequently, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Mr. Justice consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge for all purposes, including trial. See Docket No. 5 (consent). Judge Chen granted Mr. Justice's application to proceed in forma pauperis but held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, and therefore remanded to state court. See Docket No. 4 (order). After receiving Judge Chen's order, Mr. Justice sought to withdraw his consent. See Docket No. 8 (motion). Judge Chen denied that motion. See Docket No. 9 (order). Mr. Justice then made two additional filings, see Docket Nos. 10-11 (filings); Judge Chen held that, to the extent Mr. Justice was seeking any relief, that request for relief was denied. See Docket No. 12 (order). In response to that order, Mr. Justice asked the general duty judge to reassign the case. See Docket No. 13 (filing). The undersigned, as the general duty judge, denied the motion. See Docket No. 14 (order). Mr. Justice has now filed another motion in which he appears to seek certain relief from the undersigned (as opposed to Judge Chen).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Having reviewed Mr. Justice's motion, the Court hereby rules as follows: To the extent Mr. Justice asks this Court to reconsider its prior order denying his request for reassignment, the request is DENIED. Mr. Justice has failed to meet the showing required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). To the extent Mr. Justice asks this Court to reconsider the merits of Judge Chen's decision remanding the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that request is also DENIED. Mr. Justice consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes, including trial, see Docket No. 5 (consent), and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to review the merits of Judge Chen's decision. In other words, because of Mr. Justice's consent, the governing provision here is § 636(c), not § 636(b). This order disposes of Docket No. 15.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 24, 2008 _________________________ JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Court Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.

2