Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JORGE A.,1 Case No.: 25-cv-3410-MMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. FILING, ECF NO. 22 10 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of [ECF No. 22] Social Security 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed this Social Security appeal. ECF No. 1. The 15 case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt pursuant to General Order 16 707-A, and Plaintiff was notified of the right to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff and his counsel timely submitted the 18 Consent/Declination form, indicating Plaintiff “consent[ed] to have a United States 19 Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case” and “Plaintiff’s consent will be to 20 Magistrate Judge jurisdiction generally, and consent will not be revoked if the case is 21 subsequently transferred to the docket of a different Magistrate Judge.” ECF No. 5;2 see 22 23 24 1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), the Court refers to all non-government 25 parties by using their first name and last initial. 2 The Notice and “Consent/ Declination Form” correctly identify the parties in the case but 26 have a typo in the case number, listing Case No. 25-cv-3310-JLB rather than the correct 27 25-cv-3410. Both Plaintiff and his counsel’s name are correct. Moreover, at the time, this case was Plaintiff’s only active pending case in this District. Thus, it is clear this was a 28 1 also CivLR 73.2(c). The United States did not withdraw its consent, and the case was 2 deemed assigned to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 3 Upon Plaintiff and the Commissioner each filing their opening merits brief, the Clerk 4 issued a Notice of Related case regarding this action and the “low-numbered” Case No. 5 23-cv-1162-MMP. ECF No. 19. No parties objected, and on July 6, 2026, this case was 6 reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit for all purposes pursuant to Local Rule 7 40.1. ECF No. 21. 8 Following transfer to Magistrate Judge Pettit, Plaintiff submitted an outdated 9 “Consent/Declination Form” pursuant to General Order 707, purporting to indicate consent 10 to have Magistrate Judge Burkhardt conduct all proceedings.3 ECF No. 22. 11 I. LEGAL STANDARD 12 “Upon the consent of the parties,” a magistrate judge “may conduct any or all 13 proceedings in a . . . civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 14 636(c)(1). “Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the 15 reference can be withdrawn by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or 16 under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.’” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 17 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6); Fed. R. Civ.P. 73(b); Fellman v. Fireman's 18 Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1984)). “There is no absolute right, in a civil case, 19 to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Id. 20 “[O]nly a district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction 21 of a magistrate judge under section 636(c)(4).” Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 22 (9th Cir. 2019). 23 // 24 // 25 26 27 3 For context, the Consent/Declination Form under General Order 707 identified a particular Magistrate Judge’s authority for purposes of consent, rather than Magistrate 28 1 ANALYSIS 2 Here, Plaintiff consented in writing to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction generally at the 3 || outset of the case, acknowledging such consent could not be revoked if, as here, the case 4 ||was subsequently transferred to a different Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 5. However, 5 || following transfer of the case pursuant to the “low number” rule, Plaintiff submitted a 6 ||consent form purporting to consent specifically to the prior magistrate judge assigned to 7 || the case. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff does not explain, and it is unclear to the Court, why Plaintiff 8 ||submitted such a form. Moreover, the form references General Order 707 that is no longer 9 ||in effect and has been expressly superseded by General Order 707-A and Local Rule 73.2. 10 || See CivLR 73.2(e); General Order 707-A(e). Plaintiff is represented by experienced 11 || counsel, and it is clear the filing is not a motion for leave to withdraw Plaintiff's consent 12 does it provide any reasons to do so. See Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480. 13 || CONCLUSION 14 Because Plaintiff has already consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction generally, 15 |}and there is no motion to withdraw consent or request to vacate the reference for 16 || ““extraordinary circumstances,” the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's filing as improper, ECF 17 || No. 22. 18 Pursuant to the parties’ consent, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will conduct all 19 || proceedings in this case including ruling on merits briefing, the entry of final judgment, 20 || and all post-trial proceedings. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: August 11, 2026 Wyble th. al 3 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28