Ayobi v. Adams et al
ORDER Adopting 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Defendant Adams for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/5/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 1:17-cv-00693-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
DEFENDANT ADAMS FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR
(Doc. No. 7, 8, 16)
Plaintiff Shajia Ayobi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) on June 1, 2017. (Doc. No. 5.) To date, defendant has not consented or declined to United
States magistrate judge jurisdiction.
On August 14, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s first amended
complaint stated a cognizable claim against defendant Showalter for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and dismissed defendant Adams for
failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 8.) The magistrate judge indicated that
jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) based on the fact that plaintiff had consented to
magistrate judge jurisdiction and no other parties had yet appeared in the action.
On November 6, 2017, defendant filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. No. 12.) On
November 8, 2017, the court issued discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. No. 13.)
On November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
requires the consent of all named plaintiffs and defendants, even those not served with process,
before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to dispose of a civil case. Williams v. King, 875
F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss
defendant Adams by way of the August 14, 2017 order. Therefore, on December 4, 2017, the
magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed
against defendant Showalter for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, and defendant Adams be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim
for relief. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice
that objections were to be filed within twenty-one days. No objections were filed and the time
period to do so has expired. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and
Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff’s case. The
undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by
1. The December 4, 2017 findings and recommendations are adopted in full;
2. This action shall continue to proceed against Defendants Barbara Showalter for deliberate
3. Defendant Adams is dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 5, 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?