DURY v. CIUFO (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Matthew James Dury appeals pro se from the magistrate judge's order denying his post-judgment motion to collect filing fees or forfeit future collections. 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.

The magistrate judge denied Dury's post-judgment motion related to the partial payment of filing fees. However, all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017); Columbia Record Prod. v. Hot Wax Records, Inc., 966 F.2d 515, 516-17 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that absent consent, a federal magistrate judge lacked authority to render a post-judgment decision that has a dispositive effect on the parties). Because none of the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), we vacate the magistrate judge's March 3, 2020 order and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district judge may treat the magistrate judge's order as a report and recommendation.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

VACATED and REMANDED.