(PC) Mills v. Jones

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT AND 13 v. DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE OR NONOPPSOTIONTO RULE Z. JONES, et al., 41(a)(1)(B) MOTION 15 Defendants.

19 On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

20 (Doc. No. 21). On November 17, 2022, Defendants filed a notice of consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 157). On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice to decline magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 160). Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court must construe the notice as a motion to withdraw consent. Because the district court has not yet been reassigned this case to the undersigned for all purposes including trial, plaintiff may withdraw his consent without demonstrating good cause or extraordinary circumstances. Bowman v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV S-07-2164 FCDKJM, 2009 WL 799274, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2009), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIVS072164FCDKJMP, 2009 WL 1079900 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009), aff'd, 334 F. App'x 850 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1 | 636(c); Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993)). Thus, this case remains before the | undersigned only for purposes as set forth in Local Rule 302(c)(17).

3 On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion stating he wishes to dismiss the entire | action without prejudice. (Doc. No. 159). Because Defendants have filed a motion for summary | judgment (Doc. No. 151) and have not stipulated to the dismissal, the Court must construe | Plaintiffs motion (Doc. No. 159) as a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. | 41(a)(2). Local Rule 230() provides parties in prisoner actions with twenty-one (21) days to file | an opposition. The Court will, therefore, not consider Plaintiff's motion until after December 13, | 2022, unless Defendants file a stipulation for dismissal at an earlier date 10 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 11 Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 159) no later than | December 13, 2022, after which time the Court will deem Plaintiff’s motion unopposed.

Dated: _ November 30, 2022 law ZA. foareh Zackte 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE