Paul Salcido v. M. DiTomas, et al
| PAUL SALCIDO |
| M. DITOMAS, M. OSMAN, B. DHILLON and LIN |
| 22-15294 |
| March 1, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (AWT, MTF and BSB) [12416753] (NAC) [Entered: 04/11/2022 07:47 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND and BRIDGET S. BADE) : Appellants notice of appeal challenges the magistrate judges December 27, 2021 order denying appellants emergency motions for injunctive relief. A review of the record does not reflect that all parties have consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (all parties must consent in order for jurisdiction to vest with the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1)). The magistrate judges December 27, 2021 order exceeded the limits of the magistrate judges authority absent consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and we lack jurisdiction to review the order. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) (a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief); Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1992) (absent consent of all parties, magistrate judge lacks authority to deny injunctive relief); In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) (magistrate judge order not final or appealable); see also Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (court of appeals has authority to review the question of whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court). Rather than dismiss this appeal, we remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the magistrate judges December 27, 2021 order and conduct further proceedings on appellants motions for injunctive relief. See Allen, 755 F.3d at 869 (remanding to district court with instructions to vacate judgment entered in excess of magistrate judges authority). On remand, the district judge may treat the magistrate judges December 27, 2021 order as a report and recommendation. REMANDED. [12399527] (RT) [Entered: 03/18/2022 02:59 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows:.To be set Preliminary Injunction Appeal. C.R 3-3 [12382868] (ABT) [Entered: 03/01/2022 11:06 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
