Ahmed v. Juniper Networks

Filing 15

ORDER re Consent to Jurisdiction. Plaintiff's response due by 11/4/2011. Initial case management conference continued to 11/29/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/13/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED 10-14-2011* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 12 13 14 15 No. C11-02426 HRL SHAHZAD AHMED, ORDER RE CONSENT TO JURISDICTION Plaintiff, v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, Defendant. / 16 17 Plaintiff filed his complaint, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 (IFP) and a request for the appointment of counsel. Shortly after, he filed his consent to the 19 undersigned’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 5). This court denied the 20 IFP application and denied (without prejudice) the request for appointment of counsel. In a 21 subsequently filed case management statement, plaintiff now indicates that he does not consent 22 to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes, including trial. (Dkt. No. 11 at 9). 23 Withdrawal of consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in civil cases is not 24 permitted except in extraordinary circumstances. “Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate 25 judge under [28 U.S.C.] section 636(c), the reference can be withdrawn by the court only for 26 good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any 27 party.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotes omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 28 636(c)(4). “There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and 1 2 other proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480. Plaintiff has not provided any reason why he should be permitted to withdraw his 3 consent. What appears to be happening here is plaintiff consented, obtained rulings he did not 4 like, and now seeks to withdraw his consent. However, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) does not 5 contemplate conditional consent. And, dissatisfaction with some of the court’s rulings is not 6 grounds for withdrawal of consent. 7 Plaintiff has not provided the court with any extraordinary circumstances, advised that withdraw his consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction. He may have until November 4, 2011 10 in which to advise the court of any such circumstances. If plaintiff fails to respond or provides 11 For the Northern District of California his consent was somehow involuntary, or given any other reason why he should be permitted to 9 United States District Court 8 an inadequate response, his subsequent declination to this court’s jurisdiction will be deemed 12 invalid. 13 14 15 16 Pending resolution of this issue, the case management conference set for October 18, 2011 is continued to November 29, 2011, 1:30 p.m. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 13, 2011 17 HOWARD R. LLOYD 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 A copy of this document mailed to: 2 Shahzad Ahmed 5744 Jean Drive Union City, CA 94587 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?