CRAWFORD v. BEARD (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

James Darren CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16705

Decided: July 22, 2020

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

James Darren Crawford, Pro Se Michael James Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner James Darren Crawford appeals pro se from the magistrate judge's summary judgment and dismissal order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims in connection with his incoming and outgoing mail. 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.

Crawford consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then dismissed claims against defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love, and Williams before these defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 May 17, 2016 order and remand for further proceedings.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law