(PC) Young v. Coburn ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN J. YOUNG, No. 2:18-cv-1901-JAM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO 14 J. COBURN, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the 19 Court is Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent to magistrate 20 judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 15. 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On July 9, 2018, the Court received Plaintiff’s consent to 24 have the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this 25 case, including trial and entry of final judgment. ECF No. 11. 26 Approximately two weeks later, the Court received Plaintiff’s 27 request to withdraw his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, 28 along with a form declining consent, on the ground that Plaintiff 1 wanted his case heard by a jury rather than by a magistrate 2 judge. ECF Nos. 15, 16. The magistrate judge assigned to the 3 case denied the motion on the ground that Plaintiff had not shown 4 good cause or extraordinary circumstances warranting the 5 withdrawal of his consent because consenting to magistrate judge 6 jurisdiction did not deprive him of his right to a jury trial. 7 ECF No. 20. The motion to withdraw was further construed as a 8 demand for a jury trial. Id. 9 On September 26, 2019, the magistrate judge vacated the 10 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to consent in light of the Ninth 11 Circuit’s recent decisions in Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 12 863 (9th Cir. 2019) (showing of good cause or extraordinary 13 circumstances not necessary to withdraw magistrate judge consent 14 before all parties have consented), and Branch v. Umphenour, 936 15 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019) (district judge must rule on 16 motion to withdraw consent). 17 18 II. OPINION 19 At the time Plaintiff moved to withdraw his consent, 20 Defendants had not been served and therefore had yet to consent 21 or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction.1 Accordingly, 22 Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate good cause or 23 extraordinary circumstances in moving to withdraw his consent. 24 Gilmore, 936 F.3d at 863. However, in moving to withdraw his 25 consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, Plaintiff stated that 26 he was seeking to withdraw consent because he wanted his case 27 1 The Court notes that, to date, Defendants have yet to consent 28 or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction. 1 decided by a jury rather than a magistrate judge. ECF No. 15. 2) As the magistrate judge explained, consenting to magistrate judge 3 | jurisdiction does not deprive Plaintiff of his right to a jury trial and instead determines only whether the case will be 5 | presided over by a magistrate judge or a district judge. ECF No. 6] 20. Since Plaintiff’s request to withdraw consent appears to be 7 | based upon a misunderstanding of whether he is entitled to a jury 8 trial rather than on a desire to have his case heard by a 9 | district judge, the motion to withdraw is denied. 10 11 TII. ORDER 12 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 13 | Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge 14 | jurisdiction. 15 16 DATED: October 3, 2019 ft 18 HN A. MENDEZ, a UNITED STATES DISTRICT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28