Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01574/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01574-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dennis Andrew Ball,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-01574-PHX-SMM 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dennis Andrew Ball’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice for

Reinstatement with Motion to Transfer to District Judge FRCP 42.1 (Doc. 52), which has

been construed as a motion to rescind his consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction and

for reassignment of this case to a district judge (Doc. 53). 

BACKGROUND

On July 23, 2012 Plaintiff commenced this matter seeking review of the final decision

of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. 1.) The matter was assigned to Magistrate

Judge Bridget S. Bade. (Doc. 3.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Plaintiff and Defendant

voluntarily consented to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s jurisdiction in the matter. (Doc.

9.) On October 13, 2013, the Court entered an order affirming the Commissioner of Social

Security’s decision and on November 8, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered judgment. (Docs.

42, 46.) Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration of the Court’s October 31, 2013 Order on

Case 2:12-cv-01574-BSB Document 55 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 4
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 -

two occasions. (Docs. 45, 49.) However, the Court denied both the motions. (Docs. 47, 50.)

Plaintiff now seeks to rescind his consent to Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction and requests a

reassignment of the matter to a district judge. (Doc. 52.) On December 13, 2013, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court recommending that the

motion be denied. (Doc. 53.) On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 54.) After considering the Report and Recommendation

and the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objections thereto, the Court now issues the following

ruling. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,

454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Further, a party in a civil case does not have “an absolute right” to

withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990

F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). However, the court may vacate the reference of a civil matter

to a Magistrate Judge “for good cause on its own motion, or under extraordinary

circumstances shown by any party.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(3).

These requirements are “strictly construed.” Montano v. Solomon, 2010 WL 2403389, at *1-

2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg v. Coreq, Inc., 53 F.3d

851, 852 (7th Cir. 1995)). 

DISCUSSION

The factors relevant to the Court’s consideration of a request to withdraw consent to

a Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction include the timeliness of the request, whether granting the

request would unduly interfere with or delay the proceedings, and whether the party’s

consent was voluntary or uncoerced. United States v. Nevelli, 985 F.2d 992, 1000 (9th Cir.

Case 2:12-cv-01574-BSB Document 55 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 4
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 -

1983) (citing Carter v. Sea Land Servs., Inc., 816 F.2d 1018, 1021 (5th Cir. 1987)

(considering “inconvenience to the court and witnesses, prejudice to the parties, whether the

movant is acting pro se, whether the motion is made in good faith, and whether the interests

of justice would be served by holding a party to his consent”)). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to set out any meritorious objections that would permit him

to withdraw his consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 54.) Even liberally

construing the pro se filings, Plaintiff has not raised any new arguments, allegations,

objections or claims different from those that have already been presented before the

Magistrate Judge at trial. See Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Pro

se complaints are to be construed liberally . . . .”). In fact, Plaintiff is not seeking a

withdrawal of his consent; instead he has raised substantive arguments about the Magistrate

Judge’s October 31, 2013 Order. (Doc. 42.) While Plaintiff could appeal the Magistrate

Judge’s October 31, 2013 Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he may not seek

withdrawal of his consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction only because he disagrees

with the Court’s Order. 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with Magistrate Judge Bade’s ruling does not constitute good

cause or extraordinary circumstances. See M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. McGill, No.

10–CV–1436–PHX–ECV, 2011 WL 2464184, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jun. 21, 2011) (denying motion

to withdraw consent stating that disagreement with magistrate judge’s rulings is not an

extraordinary circumstance); Graham v. Runnels, No. CIV S–07–2291 GGH P, 2010 WL

3941428, *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) (denying reconsideration of order denying plaintiff’s

motion to withdraw consent); see also Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent

School Dist., 647 F.3d 156, 177-72 (5th Cir. 2011) (denying reconsideration of order denying

plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent stating that dissatisfaction with a magistrate judges’

decision does not constitute extraordinary circumstances). 

Plaintiff fails to establish any other grounds for his requested relief: he does not make

any allegations of bias or impartiality against the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 54.) Although

Case 2:12-cv-01574-BSB Document 55 Filed 06/09/14 Page 3 of 4
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

 - 4 -

Plaintiff is proceeding without a counsel, he has not presented any evidence to suggest that

his consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction was involuntary or coerced. (Doc. 54.)

Plaintiff has not argued that his consent was involuntary. (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff’s request for

recision of consent is untimely because it came after the Court entered judgment in the

matter. 

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and its objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented

any evidence of “extraordinary circumstances” and the Court does not find any cause to

justify withdrawal of the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge adequately

addressed all of Plaintiffs’ arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 53.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Notice for Reinstatement with

Motion to Transfer to District Judge FRCP 42.1 is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall furnish a copy of this

Order to Magistrate Judge Bade.

DATED this 6th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01574-BSB Document 55 Filed 06/09/14 Page 4 of 4