(PC) Baker v. Lynch

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | Timothy Ray Baker, No. 2:19-cev-02617-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. J. Howard, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 After determining each of the parties had filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate | judge, this court reassigned and referred the case to a magistrate judge for all further proceedings | im accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Prior Order, ECF No. 62. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff | Timothy Baker filed a form declining consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Decline | Consent, ECF No. 63. The court construes the form as a motion to withdraw consent. “[O]nly a | district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.”

23 | Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019). Therefore, the court retains | jurisdiction for the limited purpose of ruling on the motion to withdraw consent and denies the | motion.

26 “Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference can | be withdrawn by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary | circumstances shown by any party.’” Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing | 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and Fellman v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., | 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1984)). In civil cases there is “no absolute right” to withdraw consent to | the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. See id. 4 Here, plaintiff does not provide any explanation as to why he now declines consent; | plaintiff has not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the motion to | withdraw consent is denied. The matter is reassigned and referred back to the magistrate Judge | for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment.

8 This order resolves ECF No. 63.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 DATED: August 10, 2023.

1] CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE