Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01409/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01409-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMY PAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01409 LJO DLB PC

ORDER RE REQUEST TO VACATE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

(Doc. 33)

Plaintiff SammyPage (“plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 14, 2006.

(Doc. 1.) On October 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

(Doc. 11.) On January 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a request to vacate his consent to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction. (Doc. 33) In support of his motion, plaintiff cites Fed. Rules. Civ. P. 73 (outlining

magistrate judge jurisdiction at trial, if all parties consent), 1 (concerning the scope of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure), and Local Rule 1-100(c) (concerning the construction of the local rules).

There is a distinction between assignment of an action to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 636(b) and reassignment of an action to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),

and it appears that plaintiff maynot understand the distinction. When an action is filed, it is assigned

to a United States District Judge and a United States Magistrate Judge. If all the parties consent to

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 636(c), the action is reassigned by the United States

District Judge assigned to the case to the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, and the Magistrate

Case 1:06-cv-01409-LJO -DLB Document 42 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

Judge conducts all further proceeding, including trial. When plaintiff filled out the consent/decline

form and checked the box marked “Consent,” he was consenting pursuant to section 636 (c).

However, plaintiff’s consent did not result in reassignment of this action to a Magistrate Judge.

Cases are reassigned to a Magistrate Judge only if all parties consent. If one or more parties decline

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the District Judge will resolve all dispositive matters and conduct the

trial, if there is one. This action has not been reassigned to a Magistrate Judge because although

plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, defendants have not yet appeared in this action

and thus have not consented. 

Turning to assignment of an action to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to section 636(b), section

636(b)(1) provides that 

(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial

matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment

on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or

information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to

dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A

judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A)

where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.

(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including

evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact

and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion,

excepted in subparagraph (A), of applicationsfor posttrial relief made by individuals

convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of

confinement. 

When this action was opened, it was referred to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to section 636(b) and

Local Rule 72-302. Regardless of whether or not the parties consent to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction, actions such as this are always referred to a Magistrate Judge for non-dispositive matters

and for the issuance of Findings and Recommendations on dispositive matters. Thus, even if

plaintiff no longer wishes to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge assigned

to the case is still responsible for overseeing much of the proceedings in this case. 

Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under 636(c), the reference can be

withdrawn by the court only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary

circumstances shown by any party.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). “There is no

Case 1:06-cv-01409-LJO -DLB Document 42 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate

judge.” Id. Since this action has not yet been reassigned to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to section

636(c), plaintiff may fill out another consent/decline form declining Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

The court will direct the Clerk’s Office to provide plaintiff with a new form. By this order, plaintiff

now stands informed, however, that if he decides to decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, his

decision does not affect the referral of this action to the undersigned made pursuant to section

636(b). 

In conclusion, plaintiff’s motion for referral of this action to a District Judge and/or to

withdraw consent is unnecessary, as this action has not been reassigned to a Magistrate Judge and

remains assigned to United States District Judge Robert E. Coyle. In the event that plaintiff wishes

to decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, he may still do so, as the action has not been reassigned to

a Magistrate Judge. If, after reviewing this order, plaintiff wishes to stand by his consent of October

14, 2003, plaintiff need not take any further action and may discard the consent/decline form.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion, filed May 17, 2004, is denied as unnecessary;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a consent/decline form;

3. If plaintiff wishes to decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, plaintiff must fill out the

form and return it to the court; and

4. If plaintiff does not wish to decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and wishes to stand

by his consent, plaintiff need not take any action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 19, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01409-LJO -DLB Document 42 Filed 08/20/08 Page 3 of 3