Kelvin Allen v. Meyer
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11639
9th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Kelvin Allen, a pro se prisoner, sued correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations; officers moved to dismiss under the PLRA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Allen expressly consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction; the officers did not consent, and never filed express or implied consent.
- The magistrate judge twice ordered the officers to state whether they consented; after the first order they filed a reply but did not address consent.
- Before the officers responded to the second order and before the consent deadline elapsed, the magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment against Allen.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether it had appellate jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s judgment, and whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate judge had authority to enter final judgment without consent of all parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) | Allen argues the magistrate judge’s judgment is invalid because the officers never consented | Officers implicitly argue the proceedings could continue or that the ruling should stand despite lacking express consent | Held: Magistrate lacked jurisdiction because all parties did not consent; judgment is a nullity |
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the validity of the magistrate judge’s judgment | Allen contends the Ninth Circuit may review jurisdictional predicate to merits | Officers implicitly contest appellate review or that appeal should be dismissed | Held: Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction and to review whether magistrate lawfully exercised jurisdiction |
| Appropriate remedy for an unauthorized magistrate judgment | Allen sought mandamus to vacate; alternatively requested relief on appeal | Officers relied on final judgment; suggested appeal should be dismissed or affirmed | Held: Remanded to district court with instruction to vacate the invalid judgment and proceed (either decide motion or treat order as R&R); mandamus not warranted |
| Whether appeal should be dismissed or transferred for lack of jurisdiction | Allen opposed dismissal as leaving void judgment intact | Officers favored dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction | Held: Court declined dismissal/transfer; remand with instructions to vacate the judgment was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguon-Schulte v. Guam Election Comm’n, 469 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir.) (courts have authority to determine their own jurisdiction)
- Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (appellate jurisdiction depends on magistrate’s lawful exercise of jurisdiction)
- Kofoed v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 48, 237 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001) (judgment entered by magistrate without consent is void)
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (consent is the touchstone of magistrate jurisdiction; review de novo)
- Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1992) (magistrate actions without consent exceed jurisdiction and are nullities)
- Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003) (consent may be express or implied; consent requirement central to magistrate jurisdiction)
- United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435 (1936) (appellate courts may correct lower courts’ jurisdictional errors)
- In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 865 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1989) (transfer in interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 as remedy for want of jurisdiction)