Henry v. State of Alaska Department of Revenue Child Support Services Division et al

Filing 37

ORDER 1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND 2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS A PROPER DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION (Dkt. Nos. 26, 35). Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

RONALD HENRY,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15
16
17

STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et
al.,

Case No.: C 11-03255 JSC
ORDER 1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT
TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND 2)
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE AS TO WHY THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES IS A PROPER
DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION (Dkt.
Nos. 26, 35)

Defendants.

18
19

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent to a magistrate

20
21

judge and re-assign this case “to a District Court Article III judge for the remainder of the

22

proceedings.” (Dkt. No. 26 at 6.) The Court is also in receipt of a communication from

23

Plaintiff requesting 1) a “re-visitation of the Court’s contention that it has no jurisdiction over

24

the Alaska defendant”; 2) “a written order to support the retention of the jurisdiction of a

25

magistrate judge”; and 3) “a written order clarifying [the Court’s] contention that it dismissed

26

the United States Department of Health and Human Services . . . as defendant.” (Dkt. No. 35

27

at 2.)

28

First, as stated at the February 2, 2012 case management conference, the Court declines

1
2

to reconsider the dismissal of Alaska as a defendant. (See Dkt. No. 25.)
Second, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge

3
4

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 6.) The Court notes Plaintiff’s objection to this

5

Court’s continued jurisdiction; however, “[t]here is no absolute right, in a civil case, to

6

withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990

7

F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). In fact, only a court can authorize such a withdrawal and only

8

“for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by the

9

party.” Id. (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b); Fellman v. Fireman’s

Northern District of California

Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1984)). Plaintiff has not shown “extraordinary

11
United States District Court

10

circumstances” that would support transfer of this case to a district court judge, and this Court

12

retains jurisdiction.
Third, Plaintiff alleges that though he agreed to dismiss the United States Department

13
14

of State as a defendant, this Court dismissed the Department of Health and Human Services

15

(“DHHS”) improperly since he did not intend to agree to dismiss DHHS. (Dkt. No. 35 at 7;

16

Dkt. No. 25 at 6.) The Court previously found that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring his

17

claim against the federal government for theoretically denying him access to a passport since

18

he had not actually applied for a passport. (Dkt. No. 25 at 2.) It is unclear if Plaintiff alleges

19

any other specific harms suffered as a result of the federal government in general or DHHS in

20

particular. The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Department of Health and

21

Human Services is a proper defendant in this case by filing, on or before April 20, 2012,

22

clarification as to the particular conduct of DHHS he challenges and the harm, if any, he

23

suffered as a result.
As noted at the February 2, 2012 case management conference, Defendant shall file a

24
25

Motion to Dismiss by April 6, 2012, Plaintiff shall file any opposition by April 20, 2012,

26

Defendant shall file any reply by April 27, 2012, and a hearing will commence on May 3,

27

2012 at 9:00 am.

28

//

2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: April 5, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3