Michael Williams v. Audrey King
875 F.3d 500
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Williams, a former inmate, was identified under California’s SVPA as a potential sexually violent predator and has been detained pending resolution at trial.
- Williams filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in Aug. 2013 alleging constitutional violations from continued detention, naming Audrey King and Coalinga State Hospital as defendants.
- The district court sent Williams a consent form under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Williams consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
- The magistrate judge screened and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim before the named defendants were served.
- Defendants had not been served and thus had not given written consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Williams appealed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a magistrate judge may enter dispositive judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) based solely on a plaintiff’s consent when defendants haven’t been served | Williams: “Parties” in § 636(c)(1) includes all named plaintiffs and defendants; lack of defendants’ consent means no jurisdiction | State/defendants: plaintiff’s consent alone can suffice in some circumstances; analogies to prior in rem or unserved-party precedents | Court: All named plaintiffs and defendants are “parties” under § 636(c)(1); unanimous consent is required before magistrate judge may enter dispositive orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866 (9th Cir.) (review standard for magistrate-judge entry of judgment)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2) screening and dismissal standard)
- United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir.) (in rem action discussion distinguishing party status)
- Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530 (5th Cir.) (contrary view that unserved defendants were not parties)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (U.S.) (definition of “party” in litigation)
- Coleman v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 860 F.3d 461 (7th Cir.) (concluding unanimous consent, including unserved defendants, required under § 636(c)(1))