Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiffs continue to object to the referral of this matter to a United States Magistrate 1

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Relying primarily on McCarthy v. Bronson, 500

U.S. 136 (1991), plaintiffs contend that the referral authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is

limited to “prisoner habeas petitions and prisoner petitions regarding conditions of confinement

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Plaintiffs argue that since this action arises under federal statutes other

than 42 U.S.C. § 1983 referral to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is not

authorized by that section. Plaintiffs read McCarthy and the applicable statute too narrowly. 

/////

/////

/////

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HECKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-2441 LKK JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding through counsel with a proposed class

action raising claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990, and California Government Code § 11135. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

1

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Section 636(b)(1)(B) provides in relevant part:

(B) a judge may ... designate a magistrate judge to conduct

hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge

of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the

disposition, by a judge of the court, ... of applications for posttrial

relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of

prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). In McCarthy v. Bronson, the United States Supreme Court held that

referrals under this section properly included individual actions “challenging specific acts of

alleged misconduct” as well as those “challenging ongoing conditions.” McCarthy, 500 U.S. at

143. In so holding, the Court found that “[t]he text of the statute does not define the term

‘conditions of confinement’ or contain any language suggesting that prisoner petitions should be

divided into subcategories. On the contrary, when the relevant section is read in its entirety, it

suggests that Congress intended to authorize the nonconsensual reference of all prisoner petitions

to a magistrate [judge].” Id. at 139 (emphasis in original). The Court did specifically find that

Congress “intended to include in their entirety the two primary categories of suits brought by

prisoners-applications for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255 and

actions for monetary or injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. at 140. Neither that

specific reference to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor anything else in McCarthy suggests, however, that

referral to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is only authorized for prisoner

petitions brought under the three provisions of federal law specifically referenced in the

foregoing sentence. 

The instant action is brought, through counsel, by prisoner plaintiffs challenging

conditions of their confinement and is a “prisoner petition challenging conditions of

confinement” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For all of the foregoing reasons,

plaintiffs’ continuing objection to the referral of this matter to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is overruled.

 Plaintiffs have also requested oral argument on the matter at bar. That request is

2

denied.

2

On February 27, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiffs have

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 72-304,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 27, 2007, are adopted in

full;

2. This matter is referred to the special master in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger,

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P for a report and recommendation as to whether the claims raised

herein can be resolved within the remedial phase of that action, said report to be filed within

ninety days from the date of this order;

3. This action is stayed until said report from the Coleman special master has

been filed and considered by this court; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on J. Michael

Keating, Jr., Special Master in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger and on the parties in the Coleman

case.

DATED: March 15, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 3