Legal Opinion
Michael Williams v. Audrey King
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 9, 2017No. 15-15259PublishedCited by 1,197 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that .a district court would otherwise hear. Because consent was not obtained from the defendants in this case, we vacate the magistrate judge’s dismissal and remand.
I
Under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), inmates, approaching the end of their sentence or nearing eligibility for supervised release, may be referred for evaluation…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Coleman v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
- Neals v. NorwoodCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Federal Aviation Administration v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,197 opinions
- Kasey Hoffmann v. L. PulidoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Louis Branch v. D. UmphenourCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Victor Brown v. Jane DoeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019
- William Ehart, Jr. v. Lahaina Divers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
- (HC) Harris v. JonesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
1,192 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.