Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399-6/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSIE L. SERRANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT RAWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

OLD CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00399-LJO-MJS (PC)

NEW CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00399-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

WITHDRAW CONSENT (ECF No. 40)

ORDER ASSIGNING CASE AND PRESIDING 

JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Lucas on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. 

On April 14, 2011, Plaintiff consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge 

conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (ECF No. 4.) On July 16, 2014, Defendant declined to 

proceed before a Magistrate Judge. On September 16, 2014, Defendant filed a motion 

for summary judgment (ECF No. 34), and thereafter consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction for all purposes (ECF No. 39).

On December 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he declines to proceed 

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 46 Filed 02/25/15 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

before a Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 40), which the Court construes as a motion to 

withdraw his April 14, 2011 consent. 

“A party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional 

right to proceed before an Article III judge.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 

2003). This right can be waived, allowing parties to consent to have any and all further 

proceedings conducted before a Magistrate Judge. Id. at 479-80. There is no absolute 

right to withdraw consent to proceeding before a Magistrate Judge. Id. at 480. Instead, a 

motion to withdraw consent may be granted only for good cause or a showing of 

extraordinary circumstances. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4).

Here, Plaintiff filed only the Court’s standard form requiring a party to consent to 

or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 40.) He provides no basis for seeking 

to withdraw his consent. Accordingly, his request to withdraw his April 14, 2011 consent 

to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction is HEREBY DENIED. 

The parties having consented to have all further proceedings in this case, 

including trial and entry of final judgment, conducted before a Magistrate Judge (ECF 

Nos. 4 & 39), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled action is assigned to the 

docket of Magistrate Judge MICHAEL J. SENG as Presiding Judge.

ALL FUTURE PLEADINGS SHALL BE

NUMBERED AS FOLLOWS:

1:11-cv-00399-MJS (PC)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 46 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 2