(PC) Young v. Rodriguez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY GEROME YOUNG, No. 2:15-cv-2604 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RODRIGUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction 19 (ECF No. 8), while defendants declined magistrate judge jurisdiction on June 1, 2017 (ECF No. 20 36). On December 23, 2019, defendants filed a consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction (ECF No. 21 71), ostensibly resulting in the consent by all parties to magistrate judge jurisdiction. However, 22 plaintiff subsequently filed objections to defendants’ consent, arguing that “28 U.S.C. Section 23 636(c) does not authorize counsel for the defendants to embark on a ship that has sailed, and 24 Plaintiff opposes this untimely motion.” (ECF No. 72 at 1.) He further argues that he does not 25 believe that defendants are entitled to consent at this late stage and that “Plaintiff does not consent 26 any [sic] any event.”1 (Id. at 2.) 27 1 Plaintiff’s pretrial statement also states that he “would concede to a trial by the District Judge in 28 this matter.” (ECF No. 73 at 2.) 1 It appears that plaintiff is either attempting to claim that his consent lapsed” or moving to 2 | withdraw his consent. In either event, whether plaintiff's consent remains valid is a question for 3 | the District Judge. Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]nly a district 4 | judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.”’). 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs objections to defendants’ 6 || consent (ECF No. 72) are construed as a motion to find that plaintiff's consent has lapsed or to 7 | withdraw consent. 8 | Dated: January 10, 2020 i; dp. | bie ? CAROLYN K. DELANEY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 || 13:youn2604.consent 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > In Branch v. Umphenour, plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, but defendants initially declined and did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction until over seven years after 27 | plaintiff had initially consented. 936 F.3d 994, 998, 1000 n.4 (9th Cir. 2019). The Ninth Circuit indicated the possibility that a party’s consent could lapse if there is a significant passage of time 28 | between the party’s initial consent and the consent of the other parties. Id. at 1000 n.4.