# Brown v. United States

> District Court, N.D. California · February 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066703

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** February 10, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066703

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 ALICE BROWN, Case No. 16-cv-07235-SI

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER
11 v. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE
JURISIDCTION AND DIRECTING
12 NATIONAL PARK RANGER JOEL CLERK TO REASSIGN CASE TO
LEACHMAN, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE ILLMAN FOR
13 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Defendants.
14 Re: Dkt. No. 110

15

16
In a memorandum order filed September 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for
17
a district judge to consider in the first instance plaintiff’s December 5, 2017 motion to withdraw
18
consent to magistrate jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 110, 112. On December 16, 2020, the case was
19
assigned to the undersigned for that limited purpose. Dkt. No. 116. The Court held a case
20
management conference on February 5, 2021, and determined at that conference that the Court will
21
rule on the motion based upon the transcript of the December 5, 2017 case management conference.
22
Dkt. No. 122; Dkt. No. 111 (transcript of December 5, 2017 case management conference).
23
The record reflects that plaintiff initially consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction on
24
December 30, 2016. Dkt. No. 6. At the time, Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas was presiding over
25
the case. After Judge Vadas retired, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Illman on
26
November 6, 2017. Dkt. No. 49. At a case management conference on December 5, 2017, plaintiff
27
made an oral motion to withdraw her consent. Dkt. No. 111 at 18-19. Plaintiff explained the basis
1 for her motion as follows:
2 . . . I did read [Judge Vadas] was appointed a judge in 2004. So I agreed to consent
to [a] magistrate judge based on his experience as a judge, as I felt that I can get the
3 justice here that I couldn’t get in the trial court in Del Norte County that came from
this matter of illegal camping, and the reason I couldn’t get justice there is because
4 the judge was just appointed – or just elected the judge in that courthouse and I saw
in the courtroom that he was so inexperienced that he was referring to the Assistant
5 DA, Todd Zocchi, to basically run the courthouse, and he denied every single one of
my requests and my motions, and he would not allow me to have any witnesses or
6 any evidence that I wanted to present to prove my – my theory that I had a
constitutional right to refuse an unreasonable search of my van.
7
So because of that bad experience where I was denied justice due to the judge being
8 newly elected, I would like to withdraw my consent to a magistrate judge to hear this
case, simply because of the inexperience. I don’t want to go through that same
9 process of having you take the experience of my adversaries and rely on their
knowledge to basically run the courtroom and deny me justice.
10
Id. at 18:7-19:2.
11
28 U.S.C. § 636 provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause shown on its own motion, or
12
under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party, vacate a reference of a civil matter to a
13
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). “This ‘is a high bar that is difficult to satisfy,’ and is
14
intended to ‘prevent[] gamesmanship.’” Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019)
15
(quoting Savoca v. United States, 199 F. Supp. 3d 716, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)). “Factors to consider
16
include . . .whether consent was voluntary and uncoerced.” Meyer v. Target Corp., No. C 09-3293
17
JL, 2010 WL 1445473, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2010) (citing Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of Am.,
18
Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 543 (9th Cir. 1984)). “Neither mere dissatisfaction with a
19
magistrate judge’s decision, nor unadorned accusations that such decisions reflect judicial bias, will
20
suffice.” Branch, 936 F.3d at 1004.
21
The Court concludes that plaintiff did not establish extraordinary circumstances to warrant
22
withdrawal of consent, and thus the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s stated reason for wishing to
23
withdraw consent – that she had had a “bad experience” with a different judge who she viewed as
24
“inexperienced”– is akin to an “unadorned accusation” about judicial bias. Plaintiff did not contend
25
that her consent was coerced or otherwise involuntary, and she did not present evidence of any
26
extraordinary circumstances that would support withdrawal.
27
Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s order, the Court directs the Clerk to reassign this case to
1 Magistrate Judge Illman so that he can “articulate his reasons for denying Brown’s disqualification
2 || motion.” Dkt. No. 110.
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sin la
6 || Dated: February 10, 2021
SUSAN ILLSTON
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
a 12

15
16

it

4 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066703. Public record. Not legal advice.