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 for further proceedings, finding that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction because all parties had not consented to proceed before the magistrate judge as required by statute.

Matthew Dury, a federal inmate, appealed a magistrate judge's decision that rejected his post-judgment motion regarding the collection and potential forfeiture of filing fees. The appellate court examined whether the magistrate judge had proper authority to decide the matter. Under federal law, a magistrate judge may only handle cases when all parties—including those not yet served with process—explicitly agree to participate before that judge. Since none of the parties in this case gave such consent, the magistrate judge lacked the power to issue a binding decision on the filing fee dispute.

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

Key issues

Magistrate judge jurisdiction over post-judgment motions
Requirement of consent from all parties, including unserved defendants
Authority to decide dispositive post-judgment matters regarding filing fees

Procedural posture

A federal inmate appealed pro se from a magistrate judge's denial of his post-judgment motion concerning filing fee collection and forfeiture.

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.