Crawford v. Beard

Filing 98

ORDER REOPENING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/15/2020. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES DARREN CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-05578-JD
ORDER REOPENING CASE

v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On December 22, 2014, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint

14

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Docket No. 1.

15

The case was assigned to a magistrate judge who on May 17, 2016, ordered service on several

16

defendants but also dismissed several defendants who had not yet appeared in the case and

17

consented to a magistrate judge. Docket No. 15. The served defendants consented to a magistrate

18

judge (Docket No. 28) and the case was closed when defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion

19

for summary judgment was granted on September 29, 2017 (Docket No. 69).

20

On November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit held in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04

21

(9th Cir. 2017) that all parties including unserved defendants must consent to proceed before a

22

magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest. Id. Plaintiff later appealed the dismissal and closing of

23

his case. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case, finding that the magistrate judge

24

dismissed claims against defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love and Williams before those

25

defendants had been served. Docket No. 94. The Ninth Circuit vacated only the magistrate

26

judge’s May 17, 2016, order of service that dismissed the defendants who had not consented.

27

Docket No. 94 at 2. The Ninth Circuit did not disturb the rulings on the motion to dismiss or

28

motion for summary judgment. Id. The case was then reassigned to the undersigned.

1

This case is REOPENED. The Court will treat the magistrate judge’s May 17, 2016,

2

order dismissing defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love and Williams as a Report and

3

Recommendation. Plaintiff or any party may serve and file specific written objections to the

4

Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this

5

Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil Local Rule 72. Failure to file

6

objections within the specified time may waive the right to review the issue. The objections

7

should only address the dismissal of defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love and Williams as noted

8

by the Ninth Circuit. The Clerk shall SEND plaintiff a copy of the May 17, 2016, Order (Docket

9

No. 36).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 15, 2020

12
13
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2