Crawford v. Beard

Background

James Darren Crawford, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in December 2014. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. In May 2016, the magistrate judge ordered service on several defendants but dismissed defendants who had not appeared and had not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

The defendants who were served consented. The case was later closed after the magistrate judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Crawford appealed.

Ninth Circuit Proceedings

While the appeal was pending, the Ninth Circuit held in a separate case that all parties, including defendants who had not been served, must consent before a magistrate judge has authority to proceed. The Ninth Circuit then vacated and sent back part of Crawford’s case because the magistrate judge had dismissed claims against Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love, and Williams before those defendants were served.

The order states that the Ninth Circuit vacated only the May 17, 2016, order that dismissed the defendants who had not consented. It did not disturb the rulings on the other motions described in the order.

Ruling

Judge James Donato ordered that the case be reopened. The court will treat the May 17, 2016, order dismissing Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love, and Williams as a Report and Recommendation—a proposed ruling that can be reviewed by the assigned district judge.

Crawford or any other party may file specific written objections to that Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy of the reopening order. The objections must address only the dismissal of those five defendants. The clerk was directed to send Crawford a copy of the May 17, 2016, order. The order does not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.