Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:24-cv-06126
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steshenko v. Board, Judge Van Keulen struck the stay motion, kept the amendment deadline, and did not accept the plaintiff’s jurisdiction declination.
Gregory Nicholas Steshenko, whose motion to stay was struck and whose May 8, 2025 deadline remained in place; the case also continued under the parties’ consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction unless the court granted permission to withdraw that consent.
What happened
In Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District, Gregory Nicholas Steshenko asked to pause the May 8, 2025 deadline for filing an amended complaint while seeking review of an earlier order. He also filed a form saying he no longer agreed to have a magistrate judge handle the case.
The court struck the motion to stay because the review procedure Steshenko cited applies to certain matters referred to a magistrate judge, not to cases where all parties have agreed to the magistrate judge’s authority. The May 8 deadline therefore remained in place. The court also said that Steshenko’s attempted withdrawal of consent did not comply with Ninth Circuit law, although he could ask for permission to withdraw consent by May 1, 2025, if he believed extraordinary circumstances or good cause existed.
Judge Susan Van Keulen issued the order on April 17, 2025. The order addressed the recent filings and did not decide the underlying claims in the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District · No. 5:24-cv-06126
- Susan Van Keulen
- Apr. 17, 2025
Background
Gregory Nicholas Steshenko filed this action on August 29, 2024. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes. On April 8, 2025, the court issued an order on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions. That order gave Steshenko until May 8, 2025, to file an amended complaint addressing identified deficiencies.
Steshenko then filed two items: a motion to stay the May 8 deadline while he sought review of the April 8 order by a district judge under Local Rule 72-2, and a form purporting to decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
Motion to Stay
The court struck the motion to stay. It explained that Local Rule 72-2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) concern review of nondispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge by a district judge. That procedure is not available in a case where the parties have consented to the magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court stated that the May 8, 2025 deadline for filing an amended complaint remained in place.
Attempted Withdrawal of Consent
The court also addressed Steshenko’s April 12, 2025 filing purporting to decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Citing Ninth Circuit law and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b), the court explained that consent may be withdrawn only if the court finds good cause on its own motion or a party shows extraordinary circumstances and obtains leave from the court. The court did not accept the filing as an effective withdrawal of consent. It stated that Steshenko could file a motion for leave to withdraw consent by May 1, 2025, if he believed such circumstances existed.
Disposition and Scope
The court struck the motion to stay and left the May 8 amendment deadline in place. The order did not rule on the merits of the claims or decide the defendants’ earlier motions; it addressed only the two recent filings. The court also directed Steshenko to free legal assistance available through the Federal Pro Se Program, which would not represent him in the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.