Bontemps v. Lebeck
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/5/2018 ORDERING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING this case be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
No. 2:17-cv-1190 DB P
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 5.) On
June 16, 2017, the undersigned magistrate judge found plaintiff had accrued three strikes as
defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee to proceed with this case. (ECF No. 4.) On August 2, 2017,
the undersigned ordered this case dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to pay the
filing fee. (ECF No. 6.) Defendant was not served and has not appeared in this case.
On November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a magistrate judge
lacked jurisdiction to dismiss a prisoner's case where the plaintiff had consented to magistrate
judge jurisdiction and defendants had not yet been served. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th
Cir. 2017). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that “28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent
of all plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—
before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district
court would otherwise hear.” Id. at 501.
Plaintiff filed an appeal of the judgment in this case. On February 28, 2018, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment herein and remanded for further proceedings
based on its decision in Williams. (ECF No. 11.)
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to assign a district judge to
this case; and
For the reasons set forth in this court’s June 16, 2017 and August 2, 2017 orders (ECF
Nos. 4, 6), IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: March 5, 2018
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?