United States District Court, E.D. California
DEAN C. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Introduction
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22,
2017, the court granted defendants' summary judgment
motion and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 133, 134.)
Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. (ECF No. 137.)
On
April 22, 2019, pursuant to Williams v. King, 875
F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded this action on the grounds that
the undersigned dismissed certain claims without consent from
all parties. (ECF No. 140.) In Williams v. King, the
Ninth Circuit ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires
the consent of all parties named in a civil case before a
Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction vests for dispositive
purposes. 875 F.3d at 503-04.
In
accordance with the Ninth Circuit's April 22, 2019 order,
on May 17, 2019, the undersigned recommended dismissal of
those claims previously dismissed by the undersigned without
the consent of all parties. (ECF No. 141.)
At the
time the undersigned issued the May 17, 2019 findings and
recommendations, the Ninth Circuit had not yet issued the
mandate. On June 14, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued the
mandate. (ECF No. 145.) In an abundance of caution, the
undersigned vacates the May 17, 2019 findings and
recommendations. For the reasons stated herein, the
undersigned again recommends dismissal of those claims
previously dismissed by the undersigned without the consent
of all parties.
Discussion
On
September 5, 2014, the undersigned issued an order addressing
the claims raised in the second amended complaint. (ECF No.
18.) The undersigned dismissed, without leave to amend,
plaintiff's claims alleging an inadequate law library,
inadequate law library access and race-based lockdowns on
March 2, 2011 and November 9, 2012.[1] Pursuant to Williams v.
King, the September 5, 2014 dispositive order dismissing
these claims without leave to amend was improper because not
all parties had consented to the undersigned's
jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
September 5, 2014 order, the undersigned now recommends
dismissal of the claims alleging an inadequate law library,
inadequate law library access and race-based lockdowns on
March 2, 2011, and November 9, 2012, raised in the second
amended complaint.
The
undersigned herein addresses several arguments raised by
plaintiff in his objections to the May 17, 2019 findings and
recommendations in anticipation that they will be raised
again in objections to the instant findings and
recommendations.
In his
objections, plaintiff argues that the undersigned's order
screening the original complaint is subject to challenge for
want of jurisdiction, pursuant to Williams v. King.
For the reasons stated herein, this argument is without
merit.
On June
11, 2014, the undersigned dismissed original plaintiff's
complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) In this order,
the undersigned also denied plaintiff's May 19, 2014
motion to amend his complaint to correct a typographical
error. (Id.) Because neither of these orders was
dispositive, they are unaffected by the remand of this action
pursuant to Williams v. King. See McKeever v.
Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissal of
complaint with leave to amend is a non-dispositive matter);
S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260
(9th Cir. 2013 (“[W]here the denial of a motion
… is effectively a denial of the ultimate relief
sought, such a motion is considered dispositive.”)
In his
objections, plaintiff argues that this action must restart
anew from the erroneously issued September 5, 2014 order.
This argument is without merit. It is clear that Williams
v. King does not require this litigation to restart anew
from the September 5, 2014 order unless the district
court declines to adopt the recommendation that the claims
alleging an inadequate law library, inadequate law library
access and race-based lockdowns on March 2, 2011 and November
9, 2012 be dismissed.
Plaintiff
also argues that this action should restart from the June 11,
2014 order dismissing the original complaint with leave to
amend because the second amended complaint was filed without
leave of court. For the following reasons, this argument is
without merit.
On June
11, 2014, the undersigned dismissed the original complaint
with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On July 14, 2014, plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) On July 21,
2014, plaintiff filed the second amended complaint. (ECF No.
15.) On September 5, 2014, the undersigned issued the order
screening the second amended complaint, rather than the first
amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Based on these
circumstances, plaintiff's argument that this action
should proceed from the June 11, 2014 order because he filed
the second amended complaint without leave of court is
without merit. The undersigned observes that in the reply to
...