Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01705/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01705-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEREMY L. JAMISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMBRAJYA PALAGUMMI, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-01705 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S. § 1983. 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to recall his consent to allow the magistrate judge to 

oversee all further proceedings. ECF No. 46. 

I. Procedural History 

 On August 23, 2013, just four days after the instant civil rights action was commenced, 

plaintiff filed an election regarding consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 6. The 

election document was a form containing notice to the parties that they could voluntarily consent 

to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in the case, 

including dispositive matters and entry of final judgment. Id. However, it was further stated that 

if a party declines to consent a Magistrate Judge would continue to perform all duties as required 

by Eastern District Local Rule 302. Id. In the portion of the form in which plaintiff was directed 

Case 2:13-cv-01705-AC Document 54 Filed 06/23/14 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

to check the box indicating his decision regarding consent, plaintiff signed his name underneath 

the statement indicating that “[t]he undersigned hereby voluntarily consents to have a United 

States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case.” Id. 

II. Motion to Withdraw Consent 

 Plaintiff alleges in his motion that he suffers from bipolar disorder and depression and that 

he did not fully understand what consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all further 

proceedings meant. ECF No. 45 at 1-2. He requests that the case be assigned to a district judge 

for a jury trial and that he be appointed counsel due to his mental health status. Id. 

III. Analysis 

Once a civil case is referred to a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the reference 

can be withdrawn only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary 

circumstances shown by any party.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 

(9th Cir. 1993) (stating that “[t]here is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to 

trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.”). A referral to a magistrate judge will not 

be vacated where a party has consented in a signed writing to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the 

party fails to make a motion to vacate the reference that is supported by a showing of 

extraordinary circumstances, and the Court does not sua sponte find good cause for withdrawal of 

consent. Id. 

Here, the Court finds that plaintiff’s consent to the jurisdiction of a United States 

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final 

judgment, by manifesting his express consent in writing is binding. No good cause for 

withdrawal of consent appears on the basis of plaintiff’s motion. Nowhere in his motion does 

plaintiff explain how his mental health condition affects or limits his understanding of written 

documents or his ability to make decisions for himself. Under the circumstances, the Court 

concludes that plaintiff has not established good cause to withdraw his consent to magistrate 

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d at 480. 

To the extent that plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel on the same grounds, the 

court denied plaintiff’s subsequent motion to appoint counsel by an order entered on June 4, 

Case 2:13-cv-01705-AC Document 54 Filed 06/23/14 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

2014. ECF No. 52. Therefore, this earlier-filed request is moot in light of the subsequent court 

order denying the same. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to recall his consent to 

the magistrate judge (ECF No. 45) is denied. 

DATED: June 20, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01705-AC Document 54 Filed 06/23/14 Page 3 of 3