RUBEN VALDEZ V. MATTHEW CATE, No. 16-16948 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN VALDEZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16948 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01352-CMK v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of Corrections, California Department of Corrections; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Ruben Valdez appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with his validation as a gang member. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand. Valdez consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Valdez’s claims against three of the originally named defendants before they had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The magistrate judge also granted judgment on the pleadings for the remaining defendants, including seven defendants named in Valdez’s second amended complaint who had not consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s orders and remand for further proceedings. Valdez’s motions for appointment of counsel and to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 29 and 30) are denied. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 16-16948

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.