Andrew Moret v. Poornima Ranganathan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW GUY MORET, No. 19-36109
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01105-MK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
POORNIMA RANGANATHAN; ANDREA
DAILEY,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
OREGON STATE HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Guy Moret appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of due process due to
the involuntary administration of medication during his pretrial detention. 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.
None of the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge dismissed Moret’s state law claims, as well
all claims against defendant Oregon State Hospital. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before
the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-4
(9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge's July 18, 2018 order and remand
for further proceedings as to the dismissed claims and defendant.
In light of our disposition, we do not consider Moret’s contentions regarding
summary judgment.
Moret’s request to submit additional documentation (Docket Entry No. 11)
is denied.
The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 19-36109