Skip to main content

DEERE v. CDC (2020)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Arthur Ray DEERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, Defendant-Appellee, CDC Employees; Prison Law Office, Defendants.

No. 19-16851

Decided: October 30, 2020

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Arthur Ray Deere, Pro Se Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee


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


Copied to clipboard