Williams v. King, No. 15-15259 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court would otherwise hear. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the magistrate judge's dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit brought by a civil detainee, because consent was not obtained from defendants in this case. Therefore, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights / Civil Procedure. The panel vacated a magistrate judge’s dismissal of an action brought by a civil detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and remanded for further proceedings. After plaintiff consented to have his case decided by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s complaint prior to service of process for failure to state a claim. The panel held that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint— irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court would otherwise hear. Because consent was not obtained from the defendants in this case, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint. The panel therefore vacated the dismissal and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.