(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-02604-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RODRIGUEZ, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 23, 2019, Defendants Gill, Rodriguez, Saephan and Lewis filed a motion to 18 consent to conduct all further proceedings in this case before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 19 Delaney. ECF No. 71. On January 6, 2020, plaintiff, filed a pro se motion objecting to 20 defendants’ consent. ECF No. 72. Upon receipt of plaintiff’s motion, Magistrate Judge Delaney 21 construed plaintiff’s motion as one to withdraw consent and held plaintiff’s consent is a valid 22 question for this court. See ECF No. 74 (citing Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F. 3d 994, 1003 (9th 23 Cir. 2019)); see also ECF No. 8 (plaintiff’s previous consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction). 24 On January 24, 2020, this court appointed T. Kennedy Helm, IV as counsel for plaintiff, 25 with plaintiff’s agreement. ECF No. 76. Plaintiff filed his pro se motion before the appointment 26 of counsel and the court has not ruled on it. Good cause appearing, the court will deny plaintiff’s 27 pro se motion without prejudice. The court grants counsel for plaintiff fourteen days from the 28 date of this order to renew the motion to withdraw consent. Should counsel not renew plaintiff’s 1 motion within the time provided by this order, under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), this matter will be 2 referred to Magistrate Judge Delaney for all further proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C § 3 636(c). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: April 20, 2020. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28