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 of Trustees, Judge Gilliam denied Steshenko’s motion to withdraw consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction after he disagreed with an earlier order.
Gregory Nicholas Steshenko remains subject to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction for all purposes under his consent; the defendants’ position on the motion was upheld.
What happened
In Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District, Gregory Nicholas Steshenko asked to withdraw his earlier consent to having a magistrate judge handle the case. He filed the request after the magistrate judge partially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions.
The court explained that a party who consents to magistrate-judge jurisdiction may withdraw that consent only when there is good cause or an extraordinary circumstance. Disagreement with a judge’s decisions, or unsupported claims of bias, is not enough. The court also said the consent form had explained the consequences of consenting.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion to withdraw consent. The court said Steshenko had not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances and that his later objections to the earlier order did not provide a basis for withdrawing consent.
The detailed version
- Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District · No. 5:24-cv-06126
- Susan Van Keulen
- May 5, 2025
Background
Gregory Nicholas Steshenko, proceeding without a lawyer, consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on November 26, 2024. The defendants filed their consent on December 16, 2024. On April 8, 2025, Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen partially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions.
After that ruling, Steshenko filed documents declining magistrate-judge jurisdiction and moved to withdraw his consent. He also filed objections and a request for relief from the April 8 order. The district court considered those filings in deciding the motion to withdraw consent.
Legal standard
The court explained that although parties generally have a constitutional right to proceed before a district judge, they may waive that right by consenting to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Under § 636(c), the reference may be withdrawn only by the district court and only for good cause shown on the court’s own motion or extraordinary circumstances shown by a party. The court described those requirements as a high bar intended to prevent gamesmanship. Mere dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s decisions and unsupported accusations of bias do not satisfy the standard.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Steshenko’s motion to withdraw consent. The court found that Steshenko had received sufficient information about the consequences of consenting and had not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances. The court also found that his disagreement with Magistrate Judge van Keulen’s recent order was not a sufficient reason to withdraw consent. Finally, the court explained that objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) did not provide a basis for withdrawal because those provisions apply when a district judge refers a matter to a magistrate judge for a limited purpose, whereas Steshenko had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction for all purposes under § 636(c).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.