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)

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