James Dean Bingman v. Daniel Ward, Prison Dentist James Mickey Gamble, Warden Don Sullivan, Infirmary Supervisor Wade Heimbough, Head Nurse Infirmary

Good Law
100 F.3d 653·96 Daily Journal DAR 13745·1996 WL 661354·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 29610·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8253
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 15, 199695-36291California2,630 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fernandez, J.

James D. Bingman is a prisoner in the Montana State Prison. He brought this action against the prison dentist, Daniel Ward, and other employees of the prison (collectively “prison officials”) because, he claimed, they were not giving him proper dental care. He asserted that his constitutional rights had been violated and sued for damages and in-junctive relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The magistrate judge issued a preliminary injunction and later determined that the prison officials had not abided by his order. He found them in contempt and imposed sanctions. This appeal ensued. We have determined that the magistrate judge lacked juris diction. We, therefore, vacate the order and remand for farther proceedings.

BACKGROUND

When Bingman filed this action seeking relief from the prison officials’ indifference to his dental needs, the parties agreed that the case could proceed before a magistrate judge and that any appeal could be taken directly to this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). After receiving evidence, the magistrate judge determined that there were serious problems regarding dental care at the prison and then issued a somewhat ambiguous preliminary injunction. That…

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.