(SS) Curlee v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY JOHN CURLEE, No. 1:20-cv-00145-NONE-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING THAT PLAINTIFF 13 vs. PROVIDE CLARIFICATION RE CONFLICTING CONSENT FORMS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 On January 29, 2020, plaintiff Larry John Curlee, proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis, filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of 20 Social Security (“Commissioner” or “defendant”) denying an application for disability benefits 21 pursuant to the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) In his complaint, plaintiff claims he is 22 currently “at Coalinga State Hospital on a VOLUNTARY BASIS to receive treatment and 23 evaluation.” (Id. at 3.) He asserts his Social Security benefits were wrongfully terminated. 24 (Id. at 2–3.) 25 On February 10, 2020, plaintiff formally consented to magistrate judge over this action 26 by signing the portion of the court’s consent form (Doc. No. 5-2) that indicates he “voluntarily 27 consent[s] to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in 28 1 his case, including the entry of final judgment” (see Doc. No. 7, filed Feb 13, 2020). On March 2 17, 2020, defendant also consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 10.) 3 Thereafter, the assigned magistrate judge entered a number of orders, including an order 4 staying the matter (Doc. No. 12, filed June 17, 2020), and later lifting the stay (Doc. No. 21, 5 filed May 4, 2021). Soon after the stay was lifted, plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk of the 6 Court that, among other things, asked the court to inform him of what the next required court 7 action is and “what is expected of me and what time constraints are imposed.” (Doc. No. 22, 8 filed May 26, 2021.) In response, the magistrate judge ordered that plaintiff be provided with a 9 copy of the docket in this case as well as another copy of a previously served informational 10 order for pro se litigants. (See Doc. No. 23.) However, the magistrate judge’s order 11 inadvertently used the incorrect docket number when providing directions to the Clerk of the 12 Court. As a result, it appears that the Clerk of the Court sent plaintiff copies of the court’s 13 scheduling order and consent form, rather than the informational order. (Id. (directing clerk of 14 court to send Doc. No. 5, rather than Doc. No. 6).) The court will correct that error here and 15 will direct the Clerk of the Court to send the informational order for pro se litigants (Doc. No. 16 6) to plaintiff. 17 Even though plaintiff had previously consented to the magistrate judge, he executed 18 another copy of the consent form on June 30, 2021, in which he declined to consent to 19 magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 24, filed July 9, 2021.) This has created a potential 20 conflict. Moreover, consent cannot be withdrawn without a proper showing. If all parties to a 21 civil action consent, all proceedings including trial and entry of judgment may be conducted by 22 a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 23 2019); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479–80 (9th Cir. 1993). “There is no absolute right, in a 24 civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.” 25 Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480. Under both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure, once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under § 636(c), the reference can 27 be withdrawn by the court only “for good cause on its own motion, or under extraordinary 28 circumstances shown by any party.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(3); Branch, 1 || 936 F.3d at 1002; Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480. “Good cause” and “extraordinary circumstances” 2 || are high bars that are difficult to satisfy. Branch, 936 F.3d at 1004. “Neither mere 3 || dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s decisions, nor unadorned accusations that such 4 || decisions reflect judicial bias, will suffice.” Jd. A motion to withdraw consent or reference is 5 || to be decided by the district judge, not the magistrate judge. /d. at 1003. 6 Because it is possible that the confusion here was caused by the court’s own error, the 7 || court will not take immediate action on the second consent form filed by plaintiff. Instead, it 8 || will request that plaintiff clarify his intent as set forth below. 9 Accordingly, 10 (1) Within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff is directed to clarify his 11 intent regarding consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action. If plaintiff 12 wishes to proceed according to his original consent, he should so indicate in a brief 13 filing. If, on the other hand, plaintiff indeed wishes to withdraw his consent, he should 14 so indicate and may provide additional reasons for his requested withdrawal of consent 15 in light of the above-mentioned standards applicable to a motion to withdraw consent; 16 and 17 (2) The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a copy of the informational order 18 for pro se litigants (Doc. No. 6). 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ae 21 Dated: _ August 2, 2021 wee Te — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28