Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02321/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02321-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Although plaintiffs’ counsel has moved to withdraw, his motion was vacated because it 1

was not properly noticed. Plaintiffs’ counsel has not re-noticed his motion.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVY ANDERSON and DAVID JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs, CIV. NO. S- 05-2321 LKK GGH

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On November 28, 2006, the district court reassigned this case to the undersigned

pursuant to the consent forms filed by the parties. Plaintiffs’ consent form was signed by their

attorney on their behalf and filed on November 14, 2006. (Docket #29.) On November 29, 1

2006, plaintiffs filed a letter in which they purport to withdraw their consent. They state that they

“never consent[ed],” that they have not had contact with their attorney since October, 2006, and

they “did not ask for any Judge to be release from our case Judge Honorable Karlton has always

represented this case.” [Sic.] (Docket #37.) Plaintiffs seem to be under the impression that Mr.

Fletcher was no longer their counsel as of October 31, 2006, and they seem to question how he is

able to give their consent. These statements are repeated in other filings. (Docket #39-1, 39-2.)

Case 2:05-cv-02321-LKK -GGH Document 40 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Based on plaintiffs’ November 29 filing, the court will recommend that their th

consent be withdrawn.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs’ consent in this case, filed

November 14, 2006, be withdrawn.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge”s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 12/5/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Anderson2321.con.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-02321-LKK -GGH Document 40 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2