Saif'ullah v. Johnson & Johnson Ethicon, Inc.

Background

Khalifah E.D. Saif'ullah, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he was injured by a defective hernia-mesh implant. The defendants named in the complaint were Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Webster Surgery Center Pinole, Collin Mbanugo, San Quentin State Prison, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The opinion states that Saif'ullah's strict-product-liability and negligence claims are not legally cognizable under Section 1983 and must be dismissed. The order did not itself enter that dismissal. It addressed the proper judicial assignment for deciding claims that might be disposed of at that stage.

Jurisdiction and Reassignment

A magistrate judge may hear and decide a case only if all parties, including unserved defendants, consent to that jurisdiction. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and a Ninth Circuit decision explaining that a magistrate judge lacked authority to dismiss a case on initial review when unserved defendants had not consented.

Because the case appeared to require a decision disposing of claims against some or all defendants, and because not all parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the court concluded that the matter had to be reassigned to a district judge.

Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court's assignment plan. This order reassigned the case; it did not state that the claims were dismissed in the order itself.