Blocker v. Sadighi et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/25/2019 DENYING defendant's request (Docket No. 42 ) AS MOOT.(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JOSHUA BLOCKER, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:18-cv-253 WBS DB (PC) v. ORDER JAMES SADIGHI and PATRICK PRICE, Defendants. 16 17 ----oo0oo---- 18 19 Before the court is defendant Patrick Price’s Request 20 for a District Judge’s Review and Ratification of the Screening 21 Orders. (Docket No. 42.) 22 “ratify” or adopt the magistrate judge’s screening order (Docket 23 No. 7), which dismissed plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim with 24 leave to amend.1 25 order, plaintiff notified the court that he wished to proceed Defendant Price requests that the court However, after the magistrate judge issued her 26 27 28 1 Defendant refers in his request to “screening orders,” though it is not clear what orders the request may refer to aside from the magistrate judge’s November 27, 2018 order. 1 1 immediately on his claims against the defendants without amending 2 the complaint, and that he understood “that by going forward 3 without amending the complaint, he is voluntarily dismissing his 4 Equal Protection claim against [the defendants] with prejudice.” 5 (Docket No. 10.) 6 Equal Protection claim, the court need not ratify or adopt the 7 screening order.2 8 42) is DENIED AS MOOT. 9 10 Because plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Accordingly, defendant’s request (Docket No. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 25, 2019 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant’s request appears to be based upon the Ninth Circuit’s holding that magistrate judges do not have jurisdiction to enter case-dispositive orders without the consent of all parties. See Williams v. King, 875 F3d. 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017); Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1005 (9th Cir. 2019). However, in response to Williams, magistrate judges in this district now attach forms asking plaintiffs whether they seek to amend the complaint to correct defects in any screened claims or whether they wish in the alternative to voluntarily dismiss the screened claims. In accordance with that procedure, the magistrate judge did not issue a dispositive order on the sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint - the decision on whether to proceed was left to the plaintiff. 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?