Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-04759/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-04759-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Lloyd Howard
Plaintiff
People of the State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

DANIEL LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-4759-NJV (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW CONSENT

Dkt. No. 9

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se motion for a stay with respect to a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1. Petitioner consented to the 

jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. Docket No. 5. The court dismissed the motion to stay without 

prejudice to allow petitioner to present additional arguments. The court informed petitioner that 

he must file an underlying federal habeas petition setting forth any exhausted claims he wishes to 

present and the unexhausted claims that he seeks to exhaust. 

Petitioner has not submitted any additional filings but has filed a motion to withdraw his 

consent to a Magistrate Judge. There is no absolute right in a civil case to withdraw consent to 

trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge. See Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th 

Cir. 1993). Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under § 636(c)), the reference can be 

withdrawn by the court only for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary 

circumstances shown by any party. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6)). Petitioner has not 

shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances. He only argues that he needs additional time to 

prepare his filings. 

Petitioner’s motion to withdraw consent (Docket No. 9) is DENIED, and he will be 

Case 1:16-cv-04759-RMI Document 11 Filed 12/16/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

provided an extension of time. The additional filings must be filed within fifty-six (56) days of 

the date this order is filed. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal 

of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2016

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-04759-RMI Document 11 Filed 12/16/16 Page 2 of 2