GREGORY BONTEMPS V. D. HICKS, No. 17-15583 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15583 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01854-EPG v. MEMORANDUM* D. HICKS, Sgt., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Gregory C. Bontemps appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was subjected to an inappropriate unclothed body search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly * 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). entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand. Bontemps consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then denied in forma pauperis status on the basis that Bontemps had accrued three strikes and dismissed Bontemps’ action for failure to pay the filing fee before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (prisoner cannot bring a civil action if he has accrued three strikes). 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 order and remand for further proceedings. Bontemps’ second request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 17-15583

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.