York v. Stewart et al

Filing 51

ORDER Denying Defendants' 50 Request for a Screening Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/11/18. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD RAY YORK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR A SCREENING ORDER v. G. GARCIA, et al., (Doc. No. 50 Defendants. 16 17 On May 9, 2018, defendants filed a request for a ruling by the district judge on a prior 18 screening order issued by the assigned magistrate judge in this case. (Doc. No. 50.) Particularly, 19 defendants seek a ruling on the magistrate judge’s order of June 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 8.) A 20 review of the court’s docket shows that the ruling sought by defendants is unnecessary. 21 The magistrate judge entered a screening order in this case on June 22, 2016. Doc. No. 8.) 22 Plaintiff objected to this screening order on July 18, 2016. (Doc. No. 9.) The undersigned 23 construed these objections as a request for reconsideration under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure and denied it on November 3, 2016. (Doc. No. 10.) On November 8, 2016, the 25 magistrate judge filed another order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the 26 court of his willingness to proceed only on his claims found to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 11.) 27 Plaintiff filed a notice on November 18, 2016 indicating he did not wish to file an amended 28 complaint and would instead proceed on the claims previously found cognizable by the court. 1 1 (Doc. No. 12.) On January 10, 2017, the undersigned issued an order dismissing certain claims 2 and defendants, and directing the case to proceed against the defendants on the claims previously 3 cognizable by the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 17.) 4 The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017) held a 5 magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint unless all parties, both those already 6 appearing before the court as well as those who have not yet appeared, have consented to 7 magistrate judge jurisdiction. Here, it was the undersigned, and not a magistrate judge, who 8 dismissed plaintiff’s claims and certain named defendants from this action. (Doc. No. 17.) 9 Williams is therefore inapplicable and, defendants’ request is, accordingly, denied. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?