Cranford v. Adams et al

Filing 33

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Claims and Defendants, Consistent with Magistrate Judge's Prior Order In Light of Williams Decision, and to Assign Case to Magistrate Judge for all Further Proceedings, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/13/17. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
TINA M. ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:16-cv-00783-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS, CONSISTENT WITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PRIOR ORDER
IN LIGHT OF WILLIAMS DECISION,
AND TO ASSIGN CASE TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
(ECF NO. 11.)

17

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

18
19
20
21
22
23

I.

BACKGROUND

24

Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

25

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

26

with Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on June 6, 2016, against defendant Dunu Eyiuche

27

(RN) (“Defendant”) for violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF

28

No. 1.)
1

1

Plaintiff and Defendant Eyiuche have both consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

2

(ECF Nos. 5, 28.) However, the magistrate judge previously screened Plaintiff’s Complaint

3

before any defendants appeared. On March 16, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a screening

4

order finding that Plaintiff stated a cognizable due process claim against Defendant Eyiuche,

5

but no other claims against any of the Defendants. (ECF No. 9.) The court’s order required

6

Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed

7

only against Defendant Eyiuche for violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth

8

Amendment. (Id.) On March 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice that he is willing to proceed

9

only on the equal protection claim against Defendant Eyiuche. (ECF No. 10.)

10

Based on Plaintiff’s representations in the March 24, 2017, notice, the magistrate judge

11

issued an order on March 30, 2017, for this case to proceed only against Defendant Eyiuche for

12

violation of equal protection, and dismissing all remaining claims and defendants. (ECF No.

13

11.) In the order, the magistrate judge dismissed Defendants Tina M. Adams, (Psych Tech),

14

Jessica C. (Psych Tech), Patient V. (Psych Tech), and Barbara Niewesas from this action, for

15

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them. (Id.) The magistrate judge also dismissed

16

Plaintiff’s claims based on inadequate medical care and right to privacy, for Plaintiff’s failure

17

to state a claim. (Id.)1

18

As described below, in light of Ninth Circuit authority, this court is recommending that

19

the assigned district judge dismiss defendants Tina M. Adams, (Psych Tech), Jessica C. (Psych

20

Tech), Patient V. (Psych Tech), and Barbara Niewesas from this action, and dismiss Plaintiff’s

21

claims based on inadequate medical care and right to privacy from this action, for Plaintiff’s

22

failure to state a claim under § 1983, consistent with the March 30, 2017, order by the

23

magistrate judge.

24

///

25
26
27
28

1

Subsequently, Defendant Eyiuche was served with process and on June 26, 2017, appeared in this
action. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) On November 20, 2017, Defendant Eyiuche consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 28.) On December 6, 2017, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii was assigned to this case for
the purpose of entering these findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 32.)

2

1

II.

WILLIAMS V. KING

2

On November 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held

3

that a magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss a prisoner’s case for failure to state a

4

claim at the screening stage where the Plaintiff had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction

5

and Defendants had not yet been served. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017).

6

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that “28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all

7

plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before

8

jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court

9

would otherwise hear.” Id. at 501.

10

Here, Defendant Eyiuche was not served at the time the court issued its order

11

dismissing claims and defendants, and therefore had not appeared or consented to magistrate

12

judge jurisdiction. Accordingly, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Plaintiff’s

13

claims and defendants based solely on Plaintiff’s consent.

14

In light of the holding in Williams, this court will recommend to the assigned district

15

judge that he dismiss the claims and defendants previously dismissed by this court, for the

16

reasons provided in the court’s March 30, 2017, order, and then assign the case to Magistrate

17

Judge Gary S. Austin under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conduct any and all further proceedings in

18

the case, including the trial and entry of final judgment.

19

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

20

The court finds that this case should proceed only against Defendant Eyiuche for

21

violation of equal protection, and all other claims and defendants should be dismissed based on

22

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, for the reasons provided in the court’s March 30, 2017, order.

23

The court also finds that because Plaintiff and Defendant Eyiuche have both consented

24

to magistrate judge jurisdiction, this case should be assigned to Magistrate Judge Gary S.

25

Austin for all purposes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

26

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

27

1.

28

In light of the holding in Williams, the district judge dismiss the claims and
defendants previously dismissed by the magistrate judge on March 30, 2017;
3

1

2.

This case now proceed with Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on June 6, 2016, against

2

sole defendant Eyiuche for violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth

3

Amendment;

4

3.

All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure to state

5

a claim under § 1983 upon which relief may be granted, for the reasons provided

6

in the magistrate judge’s March 30, 2017, order;

7

4.

Defendants Tina M. Adams, (Psych Tech), Jessica C. (Psych Tech), Patient V.

8

(Psych Tech), and Barbara Niewesas be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s

9

failure to state any claims under § 1983 against them upon which relief may be

10
11

granted;
5.

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim;

12
13

Plaintiff’s claims based on inadequate medical care and right to privacy be

6.

It appearing that all parties to this action have voluntarily consented to have a

14

magistrate judge conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, this action

15

be assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for all purposes

16

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), to conduct any and all further

17

proceedings in the case, including the trial and entry of final judgment;2

18

7.

19

The Clerk of the Court be directed to assign this action in its entirety to
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin; and

20

8.

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

23

(14) days of the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file

24

written objections with the court.

The new case number be: 1:16-cv-00783-GSA-PC.

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

25
26
27
28

2

Consent to a magistrate judge does not entitle the parties to a particular
magistrate judge, and the court may reassign this case to a different magistrate judge during the
course of the litigation, without advance notice to the parties. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
1113, 1118-1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (“consent” option covers “a” magistrate judge generally).
4

1

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

2

served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

3

that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

4

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

5

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 13, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5