Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00469-5/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

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

Plaintiff Edward David Jones, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2016, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 

13, 2016. 

On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed his consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge. (ECF No. 17). 

On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to withdraw his consent to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to 

withdraw his consent due to his disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s orders, including the 

screening order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff now requests that this action 

be assigned to a district judge. (ECF No. 19). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion to 

withdraw his consent shall be denied. 

EDWARD DAVID JONES, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

DECLINE CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

(ECF No. 19)

Case 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM Document 21 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

First, it is important to note that the instant case is currently assigned to District Judge Dale A. 

Drozd, and has not been assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes within the 

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, any attempt by Plaintiff to withdraw his consent at this 

stage of the proceedings is unnecessary. 

Second, even if the matter had been referred to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes, Plaintiff 

would not be able to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances meriting withdrawal of his consent. 

Once a civil case is referred to a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), “[t]he court may, for 

good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party, 

vacate a reference . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (no 

absolute right in civil case to withdraw consent to magistrate judge). Following written consent, the 

reference to a Magistrate Judge will not be vacated where the party fails to demonstrate extraordinary 

circumstances and the court does not sua sponte find good cause for withdrawal of consent. Id. 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s orders would provide no basis for the withdrawal of 

his earlier consent. Such a disagreement does not equate with extraordinary circumstances and the 

Court finds no good cause for withdrawal of consent. Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his consent to the 

Magistrate Judge is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM Document 21 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2