Clark v. Colorado Department of Corrections

Filing 82

MINUTE ORDER granting 76 (Motion) Plaintiff's Notice of Revocation of Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction. The Clerk shall redraw this case to a District Judge. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/30/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01594-MJW
WILLIE DWAYNE CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICK RAEMISCH, in his official and individual capacities,
ANGEL MEDINA, in his individual capacity,
LOU ARCHULETA, in his individual capacity,
TINO HERRERA, in his individual capacity,
LARRY TURNER, in his individual capacity,
TRAVIS TRANI, in his individual capacity,
DENNIS BURBANK, in his individual capacity,
CHRIS BARR, in his individual capacity,
JAMES OLSON, in his individual capacity,
CORRECTIONS CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA, a Maryland Corporation,
TODD THOMAS, in his individual capacity,
BEN GRIEGO, in his individual capacity,
JODY BRADLEY, in his individual capacity,
NICK PASTELLA, in his individual capacity, and
NICK CARRIER, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
On January 26, 2015, plaintiff’s then counsel and defense counsel filed a
Consent Form Pursuant to Pilot Program to Implement the Direct Assignment of Civil
Cases to Full Time Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 46), which was amended the
following day (Docket No. 50). Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger issued an Order of
Reference referring the matter to Magistrate Judge Watanabe for all purposes pursuant
to the Pilot Program and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docket No. 49).
Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel was granted leave to withdraw. (Docket No. 69).
Counsel indicated in her motion to withdraw that she had agreed to represent plaintiff
pro bono, but she was unable to allot the time and resources necessary to work on this
case. (Docket No. 67 at 2). Plaintiff was aware of these circumstances and agreed that
it was best for his counsel to withdraw so that he can continue to pursue his claims.
(Docket No. 67 at 2).

2
Subsequently this court granted another attorney leave to provide limited scope
representation pursuant to D.COLO.LAtty 2(a) for the limited purpose of responding to
the pending motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 70 and 71).
Now before the court is a Notice of Revocation of Consent to Magistrate
Jurisdiction (Docket No. 76) which was filed by the pro se plaintiff. Defendants have
filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s Notice. (Docket No. 78).
In his Notice, which the court is construing as a motion, plaintiff states that
1. During the time of the decision [to consent] plaintiff was
represented by counsel who had convinced him that Magistrate Judge
Watanabe was his best bet due to her familiarity with him and the
observational knowledge she possesses.
2. Plaintiff is now pro se and prefers to have his civil suit drawn to
a presiding judge.
(Docket No. 76).
The court finds that the pro se plaintiff has established good cause and
extraordinary circumstances for the withdrawal of his consent under the Pilot Program.
Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel had represented to plaintiff that consent should be given
because counsel was familiar with Magistrate Judge Watanabe and due to the
knowledge she possessed. Counsel, however, is no longer representing plaintiff, and
plaintiff prefers to have his case drawn to a District Judge. It is thus hereby
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Notice of Revocation of Consent to Magistrate
Jurisdiction (Docket No. 76), which this court has construed as a motion, is granted.
The Clerk shall redraw this case to a District Judge.
Date: July 30, 2015