Ashker v. Newsom, No. 19-15224 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal arising from the magistrate judge's order extending the supervision of the case based on alleged due process violations. This action arose from a class action settlement agreement stemming from California's housing of the plaintiff prisoners in solitary confinement based only upon their gang affiliation. Before the settlement agreement was set to expire, the prisoners moved to extend its duration. A magistrate judge granted the motion on two claims, but denied a third claim, extending the settlement agreement for one year.
The panel agreed with the prisoners that it cannot reach the merits of the appeal because the magistrate judge lacked authority to enter a final extension order under 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1). Because Article III supervision was lacking here, the panel explained that the parties cannot appeal from the extension order under section 636(c)(3). Therefore, the panel cannot reach the merits of the appeal. The panel remanded to the district court to consider construing the magistrate judge's extension order as a report and recommendation.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel dismissed a prisoner civil rights appeal and cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiffs Prisoners sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and various California state officials (collectively, California) for housing the Prisoners in solitary confinement based solely on their gang affiliation. The parties subsequently negotiated a settlement, which they memorialized in a written agreement (Settlement Agreement). The district court retained jurisdiction of the action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Before the Settlement Agreement was set to expire, the Prisoners moved to extend its duration. A magistrate judge granted the Prisoners’ motion on two claims but denied the motion as to a third claim, and extended the Settlement Agreement for one year. * The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. ASHKER V. NEWSOM 3 The panel held that the magistrate judge was not specially designated to enter a final order under section 636(c)(1). Neither the district court judge nor the Local Rules for the Northern District of California specially designated the magistrate judge with authority to enter a final order. Because Article III supervision was lacking, the parties could not appeal from the extension order under section 636(c)(3). The panel therefore could not reach the merits of the appeals. In the interest of judicial economy, the panel remanded to the district court to consider construing the magistrate judge’s extension order as a report and recommendation and affording the parties reasonable time to file objections.
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.