James Michael Fayed v. Secretary of CDCR, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses the plaintiff’s motion to vacate his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction and to reassign the case solely to a district judge. The court recommends granting withdrawal of consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), because no defendants had consented or appeared, but recommends denying reassignment solely to a district judge because the case remains referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters under § 636(b) and the court’s local rules.

Holdings

1. Because no defendant had been served or appeared and plaintiff was the only person who had consented, plaintiff's consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under § 636(c) should be vacated.
2. Plaintiff's request to reassign the case solely to a district judge should be denied because the case remains properly referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters under § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff could withdraw his consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) before all parties had consented.
2. Whether plaintiff was entitled to have the case reassigned solely to a district judge rather than remain referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 302.

Disposition

other