DURY v. CIUFO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-17No. No. 20-15673

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated the magistrate judge's order and remanded the case because the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to decide the post-judgment motion, as no party had consented to proceed before the magistrate judge as required by federal statute.

A federal prisoner appealed a magistrate judge's decision denying his motion regarding the collection and payment of filing fees. The appellate court examined whether the magistrate judge had authority to decide the case and found a jurisdictional defect: because none of the parties—including defendants who had not been served—consented to have a magistrate judge handle the matter, the magistrate judge lacked the power to issue a binding decision on post-judgment issues. The court explained that federal law requires all parties to agree to magistrate judge proceedings for such authority to exist.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a magistrate judge had jurisdiction to decide a post-judgment motion regarding filing fees
Whether party consent is required for a magistrate judge to exercise authority over dispositive post-judgment matters
Effect of failure to obtain consent from all parties, including unserved defendants

Procedural posture

A federal prisoner appealed pro se from a magistrate judge's denial of his post-judgment motion to the appellate court, which reviewed the magistrate judge's jurisdiction de novo.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Matthew James Dury appeals pro se from the magistrate judges 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 Durys 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 judges March 3, 2020 order and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district judge may treat the magistrate judges order as a report and recommendation.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

VACATED and REMANDED.