Pfieffer

(PC) Stone v. Pfieffer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 20241:21-cv-01461California2,248 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ADAM JAY STONE, No. 1:21-cv-01461-KES-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION ANDERSON, et al., Defendants. (Doc. 180) 16

18 Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone requests reassignment of this action to a district judge, which the court construes as a motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Doc. 180. For the reasons set forth below, Stone’s motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction and request for reassignment to a district judge is denied. I. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2021, Stone filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Shortly thereafter, on October 21, 2021, Stone filed a consent form indicating his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Doc. 10. On March 23, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened Stone’s first amended complaint and found that he had stated a cognizable claim against…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.