Ristie v. United States
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-01221
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ristie v. United States, Judge Hixson disregarded Ristie’s withdrawal of magistrate-judge consent because he showed no good cause or extraordinary circumstances.
Gordon Ristie, whose request to withdraw consent to magistrate-judge proceedings was disregarded; the case remained assigned to the magistrate judge.
What happened
In Ristie v. United States, Gordon Ristie had consented to have a magistrate judge handle all further proceedings, including trial and final judgment. He later asked for reassignment.
The court explained that a party may give up the right to proceed before an Article III judge by consenting to a magistrate judge, but withdrawing that consent requires good cause or extraordinary circumstances. The court also noted that reassignment could delay the case while motions to dismiss and to amend were pending.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ruled that Ristie had not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances. The order disregarded Ristie’s withdrawal, and no reassignment would occur.
The detailed version
- Ristie v. United States · No. 3:25-cv-01221
- Thomas Hixson
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
Gordon Ristie consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and entry of final judgment, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). He later filed a request for reassignment, seeking to withdraw that consent.
Legal standard
The court explained that parties in federal civil cases generally have a constitutional right to proceed before an Article III judge—a federal district judge appointed under Article III of the Constitution. A party may waive that right by consenting to proceedings before a magistrate judge. Once a case is referred to a magistrate judge under § 636(c), however, the reference may be withdrawn only by the court, for good cause shown on its own initiative or for extraordinary circumstances shown by a party. A party has no absolute right to withdraw consent.
Ruling
The court found that Ristie had not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances. It also noted that a motion to dismiss and a motion to amend were pending, and that allowing withdrawal could delay the proceedings. The court therefore disregarded Ristie’s withdrawal of consent and ordered that no reassignment occur. The order did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss or motion to amend.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.