Michael Williams v. Sanjeev Batra

Ninth Circuit

Michael Williams v. Sanjeev Batra

710 F. App'x 323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 2018

Docket17-15530

StatusUnpublished

This text of 710 F. App'x 323 (Michael Williams v. Sanjeev Batra) 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

Michael Williams v. Sanjeev Batra, 710 F. App'x 323 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Williams consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Williams’s action' before the named defendant had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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 order and remand for further proceedings. To the extent that Williams requests appointment of counsel on remand (Docket Entry No. 4), the request is denied without prejudice to Williams requesting appointment of counsel by the district court.

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 17-15530, 17-15834, and' 17-16790, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as.provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Williams consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Williams’s action' before the named defendant had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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 order and remand for further proceedings. To the extent that Williams requests appointment of counsel on remand (Docket Entry No. 4), the request is denied without prejudice to Williams requesting appointment of counsel by the district court.

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 17-15530, 17-15834, and' 17-16790, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as.provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 F. App'x 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-williams-v-sanjeev-batra-ca9-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack