York v. Stewart et al
ORDER Denying Defendants' 50 Request for a Screening Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/11/18. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
REGINALD RAY YORK,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR A SCREENING ORDER
G. GARCIA, et al.,
(Doc. No. 50
On May 9, 2018, defendants filed a request for a ruling by the district judge on a prior
screening order issued by the assigned magistrate judge in this case. (Doc. No. 50.) Particularly,
defendants seek a ruling on the magistrate judge’s order of June 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 8.) A
review of the court’s docket shows that the ruling sought by defendants is unnecessary.
The magistrate judge entered a screening order in this case on June 22, 2016. Doc. No. 8.)
Plaintiff objected to this screening order on July 18, 2016. (Doc. No. 9.) The undersigned
construed these objections as a request for reconsideration under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and denied it on November 3, 2016. (Doc. No. 10.) On November 8, 2016, the
magistrate judge filed another order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the
court of his willingness to proceed only on his claims found to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 11.)
Plaintiff filed a notice on November 18, 2016 indicating he did not wish to file an amended
complaint and would instead proceed on the claims previously found cognizable by the court.
(Doc. No. 12.) On January 10, 2017, the undersigned issued an order dismissing certain claims
and defendants, and directing the case to proceed against the defendants on the claims previously
cognizable by the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 17.)
The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017) held a
magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint unless all parties, both those already
appearing before the court as well as those who have not yet appeared, have consented to
magistrate judge jurisdiction. Here, it was the undersigned, and not a magistrate judge, who
dismissed plaintiff’s claims and certain named defendants from this action. (Doc. No. 17.)
Williams is therefore inapplicable and, defendants’ request is, accordingly, denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 11, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?