(PC) Valencia v. Martinez
1:24-cv-01146
E.D. Cal.Dec 9, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Eric Valencia, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California.
- Valencia paid the filing fee and initially consented to have a Magistrate Judge preside over his case.
- No other parties have appeared or consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction at the time of the motion.
- Plaintiff later filed a motion seeking to withdraw his consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
- The District Court considered whether the withdrawal of consent required showing good cause or extraordinary circumstances since not all parties had consented yet.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff can withdraw his consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction before other parties appear or consent | Valencia requests to change his earlier decision consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction | No appearance or argument from Defendants/Martinez | Plaintiff may withdraw consent without showing good cause/extr. circumstances when all parties have not consented |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of Am., Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1984) (Parties may waive their right to an Article III judge and consent to a magistrate judge, but withdrawal of such consent is limited).
- Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1993) (Addresses standard for withdrawing consent to magistrate judge before all parties consent).
- Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2019) (A party may withdraw consent prior to all parties consenting, without showing good cause or extraordinary circumstances).