Arthur Deere v. Joe Lizarraga

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 30, 2020
Docket19-16851
StatusUnpublished

This text of Arthur Deere v. Joe Lizarraga (Arthur Deere v. Joe Lizarraga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arthur Deere v. Joe Lizarraga, (9th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR RAY DEERE, No. 19-16851

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01694-MCE-DB

v. MEMORANDUM* JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

CDC EMPLOYEES; PRISON LAW OFFICE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 26, 2020**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Arthur Deere appeals pro se from the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo whether the magistrate judge had jurisdiction. Allen v. Meyer, 755

F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Deere consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Deere’s claims

against the Prison Law Office before any named defendant had been served. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must

consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v.

King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s

March 28, 2017 order and remand for further proceedings.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Deere’s contentions regarding

summary judgment.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 19-16851

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kelvin Allen v. Meyer
755 F.3d 866 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Michael Williams v. Audrey King
875 F.3d 500 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arthur Deere v. Joe Lizarraga, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-deere-v-joe-lizarraga-ca9-2020.