Loadholt

(PC) Patton v. Loadholt

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 30, 20232:19-cv-00451California366 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY L. PATTON, No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s form declining consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, filed June 26, 2023, is disregarded. On March 3, 2019, plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 3.) On May 8, 2023, defendants consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 158.) On June 2, 2023, the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller reassigned this action to the undersigned based on the consent forms filed by both parties. (ECF No. 162.) Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the reference can be withdrawn only by the district court, and only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary…

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.