Frost v. Hallock et al

Filing 61

Order Granting Opportunity to Object to Magistrate Judge's Rulings. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/8/2019. (kedS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/8/2019: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (kedS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SHAWN KEVIN FROST,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 17-CV-07229-LHK

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING OPPORTUNITY
TO OBJECT TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S RULINGS

v.
J. HALLOCK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 5

Defendants.

17
18

This action originally was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Plaintiff and

19

some defendants consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. At least one defendant did not

20

consent to proceed before a magistrate judge.

21

This action was reassigned to the undersigned because a new Ninth Circuit case determined

22

that all named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent before a magistrate judge has

23

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) to hear and decide a case. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d

24

500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Williams”) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss case on initial

25

review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before magistrate judge). Under the

26

Williams rule, magistrate judges are unable to take dispositive action on a consent basis if they do not

27

have the consent of unserved defendants. Magistrate judges can, however, submit proposed findings

28

1
Case No. 17-CV-07229-LHK
ORDER GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULINGS

1

of fact and recommendations for the disposition of many pretrial matters. See 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B). In a case in which full consent has not been obtained, and when a magistrate

3

judge submits proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of a pretrial matter,

4

the parties may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings of fact and recommendations.

5

Id. at § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Usually such objections are due within fourteen days of

6

the magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(2), (b).

7

Here, Magistrate Judge Corley found that plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim for violation

8

of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but dismissed plaintiff’s First, Fifth, and

9

Eighth Amendment claims. See Dkt. No. 5 (“Screening Order”) at 2. The parties then proceeded
litigating the claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

filed two motions for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Due Process Clause

12

of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dkt. Nos. 35, 57. As the Court noted in its order deciding the

13

motions for summary judgment, plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the

14

Fourteenth Amendment was ripe for review.

15

Under the circumstances, the preferable approach is to treat Magistrate Judge Corley’s

16

Screening Order as proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to the First, Fifth, and Eighth

17

Amendment claims, and to give the parties an opportunity to file any objections to those proposed

18

findings of fact and recommendations. Accordingly, no later than thirty days from the date of this

19

order, any party may serve and file written objections to Magistrate Judge Corley’s Screening Order.

20

See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b). A party’s objections must consist of a single document of

21

no more than 20 pages. A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing and serving a

22

response within thirty days after being served with a copy of the objections. A party’s response to

23

another party’s objections must consist of a single document of no more than 20 pages.

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 17-CV-07229-LHK
ORDER GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULINGS

Once the court receives any objections and responses thereto, the court will “determine de

1
2

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

72(b)(3).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6
7

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 17-CV-07229-LHK
ORDER GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULINGS