Opinion
22-cv-04718-SK
08-29-2022
A.W.S., Plaintiff, v. IAIN D. JOHNSTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING CONSENT
SALLIE KIM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
In this action, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against three defendants - Iain Johnston, a United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, a division of the California State Bar (“OCTC”), and the United States. On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 5.) On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss OCTC as a defendant. (Dkt. No. 14.) On August 26, 2022, the United States filed a consent on behalf of itself and Judge Johnston to the extent Judge Johnston is sued in his official capacity, but counsel noted that she does not represent Judge Johnston in his individual capacity. (Dkt. No. 12.)
Judge Johnston has not made a separate appearance. In Plaintiff's motion to remand, he argues that he is suing Judge Johnson as a “person” and is not seeking any relief from him as a “judge.” Plaintiff further argues that he alleges that “Johnston, in his capacity as a person (not as a government employee acting in the scope of any official duty), misrepresented facts to the U.S. Senate.” (Dkt. No. 6.) Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the Court finds that not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and that this matter must be REASSIGNED to a district court judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.