Gilmore v. Lockard, No. 17-15636 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against various prison officials, alleging that they used excessive force after an incident where defendant was shot in the knee.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and held that a party need not satisfy the good cause or extraordinary circumstances standard provided in 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(4) in order to withdraw magistrate judge consent before all parties have consented. In this case, the magistrate judge erroneously required such a showing by plaintiff and, under the circumstances, his motion to withdraw consent should have been granted. Therefore, the panel held that the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction over trial proceedings under section 636(c). The panel also reversed the dismissal of Defendant Torres, holding that the 90-day window under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) was never triggered, and reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights The panel reversed the district court’s jury verdict in favor of defendant prison officials and remanded for further proceedings in an action brought by a California state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants used excessive force against him and delayed his access to medical assistance. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Nearly two years later, defendants declined consent, and the case was assigned to a district court judge. Thereafter, the magistrate judge originally assigned to this case retired, and another magistrate judge took over the case to address pretrial motions. Following an adverse ruling on a motion to compel, plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion, stating that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), a request to withdraw consent will be granted only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances, and that disagreement with a ruling did not amount to good cause. Defendants subsequently consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, almost four years after plaintiff’s consent. The panel held that a party need not satisfy the good cause or extraordinary circumstances standard provided in GILMORE V. LOCKARD 3 § 636(c)(4) in order to withdraw magistrate judge consent before all parties have consented. The panel held that because the magistrate judge erroneously required such a showing by plaintiff, and because under the circumstances his motion to withdraw consent should have been granted, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the trial. While plaintiff’s case was pending, the Attorney General notified him that one of the defendants had died, but did not identify a personal representative for the defendant’s estate. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the deceased defendant from the action, along with plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. The district court held that additional attempts to identify a representative would be futile due to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)’s 90-day filing requirement. The panel held that the magistrate judge erred by placing the burden on plaintiff to identify the deceased defendant’s successor or personal representative. The panel concluded that Rule 25(a)’s 90-day window was not triggered, and therefore the panel reversed the dismissal of the deceased defendant, and reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to medical needs claim. The panel stated that because it was reversing the jury verdict and remanding for further proceedings based on the magistrate judge’s lack of jurisdiction, it was not necessary to consider plaintiff’s evidentiary challenges in detail. However, for the guidance of the trial court on remand, the panel noted that the probative value of defendants’ expert testimony about gangs to which plaintiff had no connection was minimal and was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 4 GILMORE V. LOCKARD
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.