(PC) Felix v. Clandenin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX No. 1:23-cv-00839-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION TO DECLINE ALL 14 STEPHANIE CLANDENIN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE INVOLVEMENT IN HIS CASE 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 14) 16 17 On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix filed a document designated on the 18 docket as “CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 14.) Upon 19 closer inspection of the document, it appears that Plaintiff seeks clarification about the role of 20 Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe in his case following his notice declining magistrate 21 judge jurisdiction. (See id. at 1.) 22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302, magistrate judges in the Eastern District 23 of California oversee civil rights cases filed by plaintiffs in custody, like this one. This means 24 that magistrate judges hear and determine all non-dispositive pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b)(1)(A). They also conduct hearings and issue findings and recommendations on dispositive 26 matters such as motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Id. § 636(b)(1)(B). 27 Those findings and recommendations are subject to de novo review by a district court judge. Id. 28 § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may stipulate to have a magistrate judge hear and make final rulings on 1 | dispositive matters, conduct trial, and enter final judgment without review from the district court. 2 | Id. § 636(c)(1). They may not, however, stipulate to have a district court judge hear all matters 3 | without the assistance of a magistrate judge. 4 When Plaintiff filed a notice declining magistrate judge jurisdiction in this case, he 5 | declined the opportunity to have a magistrate judge make final determinations of pretrial motions, 6 | conduct trial, and enter final judgment without district court review. His notice did not terminate 7 | Magistrate Judge McAuliffe’s role in conducting her duties pursuant to Local Rule 302. 8 | Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff moves for this Court to assume duties that have been delegated 9 | to Magistrate Judge McAuliffe by Local Rule, that request is denied. 10 In his filing, Plaintiff states that he was declining “the assignment of Judge Barbara A. 11 | McAuliffe, due to prior prejudice rulings.” (ECF No. 14 at 1.) To the extent that Plaintiff seeks 12 | to disqualify Magistrate Judge McAuliffe, he should file a motion and affidavit to that effect. It 13 | would be proper for Magistrate Judge McAuliffe to address the facial sufficiency of such a 14 | motion and affidavit in the first instance. See United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th 15 Cir. 1978). 16 Accordingly, 17 1. Plaintiff's construed motion to decline the involvement of Magistrate Judge 18 McAuliffe in all aspects of his case is denied; and 19 2. The matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge McAuliffe for further proceedings. 20 91 | TIS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: _ October 10, 2023 33 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28