Rodriguez

(PC) Young v. Rodriguez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 20202:15-cv-02604California301 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANNY GEROME YOUNG, No. 2:15-cv-02604-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendant. 16 On December 23, 2019, Defendants Gill, Rodriguez, Saephan and Lewis filed a motion to consent to conduct all further proceedings in this case before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. ECF No. 71. On January 6, 2020, plaintiff, filed a pro se motion objecting to defendants’ consent. ECF No. 72. Upon receipt of plaintiff’s motion, Magistrate Judge Delaney construed plaintiff’s motion as one to withdraw consent and held plaintiff’s consent is a valid question for this court. See ECF No. 74 (citing Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F. 3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019)); see also ECF No. 8 (plaintiff’s previous consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction). On January 24, 2020, this court appointed T. Kennedy Helm, IV as counsel for plaintiff, with plaintiff’s agreement. ECF No. 76. Plaintiff filed his pro se motion before the…

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.