Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662-11/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E.R., K.R., and S.R., minors, by and on 

behalf of their guardian ad litem CORINA 

MAREZ; and RUBY RODRIGUES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF STANISLUS, 

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT; CORRECT CARE 

SOLUTIONS, LLC; DR. CHARLES 

EDWARDS; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION

(Doc. No. 90)

On April 18, 2016, the parties to this action filed a stipulation “to submit jurisdiction to 

Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone for the limited purposes of handling the minors’ compromise. 

(Doc. No. 90.) However, the relief the parties seek by way of their stipulation is not permitted by 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) or the court’s Local Rules. 

To the extent the parties seek to have Magistrate Judge Boone address a proposed minor’s 

compromise in this action, they may proceed in one of two ways:

(1) The parties may file a motion for approval of a minor’s compromise in addition to 

a stipulation requesting that the court refer the motion to Magistrate Judge Boone

for the purposes of issuing findings and recommendations addressing it, see 28 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 91 Filed 05/11/16 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

27

28

2

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); or 

(2) The parties may consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all purposes in this 

action, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If the parties elect this latter option, the case will be 

reassigned to Magistrate Judge Boone for all purposes.

However, the parties cannot consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction for only a limited 

purpose as suggested by their stipulation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the parties’ 

proposed stipulation is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 91 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 2