Hartsoe v. State of Montana et al

Filing 64

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46 in full; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by C.B. McNeil, 15 Motion to Dismiss filed by Lynn Fricker, 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Casey Emerson, 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Debra Christopher. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 3/13/2017. Mailed to Hartsoe. (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
JOHN HARTSOE,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
STATE OF MONTANA, et al.,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendation on December 21, 2016, recommending granting Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss Defendants Casey Emerson, C.B. McNeil, Ed McLean, Blair
Jones, Victor Valgenti, John Murphy, Sue Schleif, Jim Rice, Patricia Cotter, Beth
Baker, Mike Wheat, James Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Lyn Fricker, and Deborah
Christopher. Plaintiff John Hartsoe, appearing prose, timely filed an objection
and is therefore entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations
to which he specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(C). This Court reviews
for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). "Clear error exists if
the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
-1-

committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). Because
the parties are familiar with the factual background of this case, it will not be
repeated here.
Upon review ofHartsoe's objections, the Court finds that they fail to
specify any legal error with Judge Lynch's recommendation to grant Defendants'
Motions and dismiss Defendants Casey Emerson, C.B. McNeil, Ed McLean, Blair
Jones, Victor Valgenti, John Murphy, Sue Schleif, Jim Rice, Patricia Cotter, Beth
Baker, Mike Wheat, James Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Lyn Fricker, and Deborah
Christopher. Instead, Hartsoe argues that: (1) Judge Lynch lacked jurisdiction to
issue his Findings and Recommendation and several other Orders; and (2) that
Judge Lynch and the undersigned should recuse ourselves from this proceeding.
The Court will address these arguments in turn.
Hartsoe contends that Judge Lynch lacked jurisdiction to issue the Findings
and Recommendation, as well as additional nondispositive orders, because
Hartsoe never consented to have his case heard by a United States magistrate
judge. Hartsoe cites to 28 U.S.C. § 636(C) in support. This statute discusses how
a United States magistrate judge may be designated by a district court to "conduct
any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of
judgment in the case." 28 U.S.C. § 636(C)(l ). Hartsoe essentially argues that
-2-

because he never was served with "a form 80 []Notice of a Magistrate Judge's
availability" and never consented to Judge Lynch ruling on pretrial matters, his
previous orders and Findings and Recommendation were "illegal orders" and
should be rejected for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 57 at 2-3.) Hartsoe
misunderstands the Magistrates Act.
Under the Magistrates Act, a district court "may designate a magistrate
judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (discussing how magistrate
judge may hear and decide nondispositive pretrial matters and issue proposed
findings and recommendations to the district court for dispositive matters).
Indeed, under this District's Local Rules, certain cases are automatically referred
to a magistrate judge upon the filing of the case, such as cases where "one or more
plaintiffs are self-represented." L.R. 72.2(a)(l). However, if a case moves beyond
pretrial matters and into trial, or some other civil proceeding, the parties must be
given an opportunity to withhold their consent to the magistrate judge conducting
the trial. 28 U.S.C. § 636(C)(l) ("Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time
United States magistrate judge ... may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or
nonjury civil matter ... .");see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a) ("[A] magistrate judge
may, if all parties consent, conduct a civil action or proceeding, including a jury or
nonjury trial.").
-3-

Here, because Hartsoe is representing himself pro se, this case was
automatically referred to Judge Lynch for ruling on pretrial matters. As discussed,
this is allowable under both the Magistrates Act and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Further, Hartsoe's consent to Judge Lynch ruling on pretrial matters is
not required under the law. Thus, Hartsoe's argument that Judge Lynch lacked
jurisdiction to hear and decide pretrial matters, and issue findings and
recommendations, is not supported by the plain language of the Magistrates Act.
Hartsoe's first objection is overruled.
Next, Hartsoe argues that Judge Lynch and the undersigned should recuse
ourselves from this case because we have ignored the law by allowing Judge
Lunch to issue orders without Hartsoe's consent. However, as explained above,
Hartsoe's consent was not required for Judge Lynch to rule on pretrial matters.
Thus, Judge Lynch's orders and Findings and Recommendation were not "illegal
orders," and there is no basis for Judge Lynch or the undersigned to recuse
ourselves. (Doc. 57 at 2-3.) In addition, the Court notes that Hartsoe has
previously accused Judge Lynch and the undersigned of concealing the criminal
actions of others and moved for our recusal. The Court denied these motions
(Docs. 26, 33) and now incorporates and adopts these findings into this Order.
Hartsoe's second objection is overruled.

-4-

Accordingly, the Court reviews the remainder of Judge Lynch's Findings
and Recommendation for clear error and, finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 46) are ADOPTED
IN FULL; and
(2) Defendants Casey Emerson, C.B. McNeil, Ed McLean, Blair Jones,
Victor Valgenti, John Murphy, Sue Schleif, Jim Rice, Patricia Cotter, Beth Baker,
Mike Wheat, James Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Lyn Fricker, and Deborah
Christopher's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 11, 13, 15, 21) are GRANTED, and
Hartsoe's claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2017.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief istrict Judge
United States District Court

-5-