Opinion
No. C 11-3648 PJH.
October 18, 2011
ORDER
The instant action was recently reassigned to the undersigned judge, following the filing of defendant "alleged Doe 68.105.97.108"'s notice of "non-consent" to the underlying magistrate judge's jurisdiction. The court is also in receipt of plaintiff's objection to the reassignment. The court has reviewed plaintiff's objection and agrees with plaintiff that, since defendant is a Doe defendant whose identity is unknown and who has yet to be served with process in the underlying action, defendant's standing to decline the magistrate judge's jurisdiction is unclear. Reassignment to the undersigned is therefore improper, until defendant Doe's identity has been determined, and service of process has been either made upon the identified Doe defendant, or waived by the same.
The clerk is therefore directed to reassign the matter back to the magistrate judge originally assigned to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.