Meyer

Kelvin Allen v. Meyer

Good Law
755 F.3d 866·2014 WL 2782198·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11639
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 20, 201411-16714California1,612 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

We must decide whether we have jurisdiction to review the validity of a judgment entered by a magistrate judge who failed to obtain the consent of both parties, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(1). We conclude that we do. Because the magistrate judge entered judgment on behalf of the district court without the parties’ consent, the judgment was invalid. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court with instructions to vacate the invalid judgment and to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Background

Kelvin Allen filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging that several correctional officers (the “officers”) at Cor-coran State Prison violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. After the magistrate judge dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, Allen amended his complaint. The officers then moved to dismiss Allen’s amended complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Allen consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge, but the record confirms — and the parties concede — that the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.