(PC) Pina v. Ysusi ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PABLO P. PIÑA, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01735 JLT BAM (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ) WITHDRAW CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE 13 v. ) JUDGE JURISDICTION ) (Doc. 38) 14 YSUSI, et al., ) ) ORDER REASSIGNING THE ACTION TO THE 15 Defendants. ) U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES ) 16 17 Pablo P. Piña is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12, 2021, Plaintiff indicated his consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate 19 Judge for all purposes, including trial and entry of final judgment. (Doc. 12.) Thereafter, Defendants 20 also indicated their consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 35.) Accordingly, the 21 matter was reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe for all further purposes and 22 proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) on February 1, 2022. (Doc. 36.) 23 On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed another form indicating he declined to consent to the 24 jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 37.) The assigned magistrate judge construed the form 25 as a motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction and the matter was assigned 26 undersigned for the limited purpose of the disposition of Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 38.) 27 A party to a federal civil case generally has a constitutional right to proceed before an Article 28 III judge, but this right may be waived. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993). Upon the 1 || consent of all parties to the jurisdiction of magistrate judge for all further proceedings pursuant to 28 2 || U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), an action may be referred to a magistrate judge. See id.; Branch vy. Umphenour, 3 || 936 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2019). 4 Importantly, “[t]here is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and othe: 5 || proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480; see also Carter v. Sea Land Services 6 Jnc., 816 F.2d 1018, 1020-21 (Sth Cir. 1987) (upholding the denial of motion to withdraw consent). A 7 || explained by the Fifth Circuit, once a right—even a fundamental right— is knowingly and voluntaril 8 || waived, a party has “no constitutional right to recant at will.” Jd. at 1021. Thus, after all parties have 9 || consented and the action is referred to a magistrate judge, “the reference can be withdrawn only ‘for 10 || good cause shown on [the court’s] own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any 11 || party.’” Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4)). The showing of “extraordinary 12 || circumstances... is a high bar that is difficult to satisfy.” Branch, 936 F.3d at 1004 (citation omitted) 13 Plaintiff fails to meet the “high bar” required to support the withdrawal of his consent to 14 || magistrate judge jurisdiction. Plaintiff merely completed a new form, without any explanation for hi: 15 || attempt to withdraw his consent. The Court is unable to speculate that “exceptional circumstances” 16 || exist for withdrawal of his consent. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The request to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge is DENIEI 18 2. The Clerk is directed to reassign the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara 19 McAuliffe for all purposes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), including trial a 20 entry of judgment; and 21 3. Further papers shall bear the case number 1:20-cv-01735-BAM (PC). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 |! Dated: February 25, 2022 ( LAW ph L. wan 25 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28