Jones
(PC) Mills v. Jones
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 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
14 Z. JONES, et al., 41(a)(1)(B) MOTION
15 Defendants.
16 17
18 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 21 jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 157). On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice to decline 22 magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 160). Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court must 23 construe the notice as a motion to withdraw consent. Because the district court has not yet been 24 reassigned this case to the undersigned for all purposes including trial, plaintiff may withdraw his 25 consent without demonstrating good cause or extraordinary circumstances. Bowman v. 26 Schwarzenegger, No. CIV…