(PC) De La Cruz v. Newsom ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSE MIGUEL DE LA CRUZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00997-DAD-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 11 TO CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF v. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., (ECF No. 7) 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 Jose Miguel De La Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to consent to the jurisdiction of the 20 magistrate judge. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff states that he consents to magistrate judge jurisdiction 21 in this action and asks for an order transferring formal jurisdiction of this case from District 22 Judge Dale A. Drozd to the undersigned. 23 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Plaintiff may consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, 24 and the Court will issue (or may have already issued) another order regarding consent or 25 decline of magistrate judge jurisdiction. However, in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 26 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the 27 consent of all plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of 28 process—before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that wOAOe UV POA SMU OPI OF ee OY ee 1 |} a district court would otherwise hear.” Id. at 501. The defendants have not yet consented. 2 || Thus, jurisdiction may not vest in the undersigned at this time and Plaintiff's motion will be 3 || denied. 4 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to 5 || consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge is DENIED. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 25, 2020 [sje hey 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28