Document: 500 U.S. 136 111 S.Ct. 1737 114 L.Ed.2d 194 John J. McCARTHY, Petitionerv.George BRONSON, Warden, et al. No. 90-5635. Argued March 25, 1991. Decided May 20, Syllabus Petitioner brought a District Court suit against various state prison officials alleging that, in violation of his constitutional rights, they used excessive force when transferring him from one cell to another. Although he waived jury trial and initially consented have magistrate try the entire case pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), petitioner was permitted at withdraw consent Magistrate's jurisdiction. However, Magistrate ruled that nonetheless authorized conduct an evidentiary hearing submit proposed findings fact recommended disposition court under 636(b)(1)(B), which authorizes nonconsensual referral magistrates for such purposes "of applications posttrial relief made by individuals convicted criminal offenses prisoner petitions challenging conditions confinement." (Emphasis added.) The overruled petitioner's objection role accepted judgment defendants. Appeals affirmed. Held: Section 636(b)(1)(B) does not, as contends, permit referrals only challenges ongoing conditions, but encompasses cases specific episode unconstitutional administrators. Pp. 138-144. (a) most natural reading phrase "challenging confinement," viewed isolation, would not include suits seeking isolated episodes conduct, 636(b)(1)(B)'s text, read its entirety, suggests Congress intended two primary categories suits—habeas corpus actions monetary or injunctive relief—and thus authorize reference all magistrate. This interpretation is bolstered Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 475, 498-499, 93 1827, 1840-1841, 36 439, which, just three years before drafted, described same broad unambiguously embraced instances within "conditions may latter term mean situations other legislation having different purpose cannot alter language so clearly parallels opinion. Moreover, adoption definition comports with central assisting federal judges handling ever-increasing caseload. (b) argues because constitutionally entitled damages action arising out misconduct, it unlikely who trial. argument persuasive. Petitioner's statutory concededly eliminate potential difficulty identifies. More important, statute properly interpreted infirm like this one, plaintiff right trial, nor exists waived, lower courts, guided principle avoidance, consistently held P. 144. 906 F.2d 835 (CA2 1990), STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Christopher D. Cerf, petitioner. Richard Blumenthal, respondents. Justice STEVENS 1 In 1976, 636(b)(1)(B).1 We granted certiorari decide whether authorization includes administrators conditions. 498 ----, 578, 112 584 (1990). 2 case, transferred another on July 13, 1982. App. 11-24. 636(c)(1).2 See 7-8, 28-29. On first day however, sought consent. consent, id., 30-31. 3 After hearing, detailed Id., 33-49. recommendation role. 54-55. affirmed Court's determination hold recommend findings. 1990). 4 contends permits Suits acted unconstitutionally incident, suggests, are classified "petitions 636(b)(1)(B). 5 advances reasonable arguments construction statute. First, maintains ordinary meaning words confinement" continuous excludes incidents. Second, seems case. our judgment, these arguments, although without force, overcome considerations. 6 do quarrel claim conduct. must always be proper context. "In ascertaining plain [a] statute, look particular issue, well design whole." K Mart Corp. Cartier, Inc., 486 281, 291, 108 1811, 1817, 100 313 (1988). also Crandon United States, 494 152, ---, 110 997, 1001, 132 (1990) ("In determining we language, whole object policy" ). 7 text define contain any suggesting should divided into subcategories. contrary, relevant section pertinent part, provides: 8 "(b)(1) Notwithstanding provision law contrary— 9 . "(B) judge designate 10 hearings, including recommendations disposition, court, (emphasis added). 11 description their entirety prisoners—applications habeas §§ 2254 2255 42 1983. 12 attempts bolster suggestion has limitation suggests. certainly presume 1976 selected elected representatives were familiar recently announced opinions concerning petitions. Cannon University Chicago, 441 677, 696-697, 99 1946, 1957-1958, 60 560 (1979). possibility influenced choice cuts rather than favor advanced 13 All claims support decided after enactment sole identified predates statute's did even use much less expound narrow it. Procunier Martinez, 416 396, 94 1800, 40 224 (1974). 14 Just 439 (1973), had petitions: (1) those duration confinement itself; (2) confinement. emphasized above describes categories. Significantly, category kind single exclude. wrote: 15 "The respondents place great deal reliance recent decisions upholding prisoners bring civil rights challenge Cooper Pate, 378 546 [84 1733, 1030] (1964); Houghton Shafer, 392 639 [88 2119, 20 1319] (1968); Wilwording Swenson, 404 249 [92 407, 30 418] (1971); Haines Kerner, 519 594, 652] (1972). But none physical itself, immediate release speedier confinement—the heart corpus. Cooper, alleged solely religious beliefs, been denied permission purchase certain publications privileges enjoyed fellow prisoners. Houghton, prisoner's contention authorities violated Constitution confiscating legal materials acquired pursuing appeal, rules, found possession prisoner. Wilwording, prisoners' complaints related living disciplinary measures while confined maximum security. And Haines, claimed placing solitary measure, injuries sustained segregated. It clear, then, cases, State's treatment them None sought, here, very itself. Those therefore, merely establish 1983 remedy making life, length custody." S.Ct., 1840-1841. 16 denial confiscation and, definitely, placement 17 supported legislation, situations.3 sense control Act 18 broader adopt policy behind Act. amendment greater assist "in caseload." S.Rep. 94-625, p. (1976). consistent will allow cases. Our furthers simplicity avoids litigation otherwise inevitably arise trying identify precise contours suggested exception 19 generate additional work district courts distinction between acts misconduct often difficult identify. complaint filed illustrates point. hand, defendants injured improper chemical agent "commonly referred correctional sadists 'Big Red,' " 14, complained absence regulations governing tear gas,4 relief5 damages. Thus, complaint, many petitions, could fairly characterized both practices act misconduct. persuaded based concedes some considered definition, render suspect. Reply Brief 5, n. 3. more infirm. No question arises And, See, e.g., Hall Sharpe, 812 644, 647-649 (CA11 1987); Archie Christian, 808 1132, 1135-1137 (CA5 1987) (en banc); Wimmer Cook, 774 68, 73-74 (CA4 1985). 21 22 ordered. Title provides part: 636(c)(1) "Notwithstanding "(1) Upon parties, full-time States part-time serves judicial officer proceedings nonjury matter order entry specially designated exercise jurisdiction serves." 4013(a)(4) (authorizing Attorney General enter contracts "to acceptable facilities housing detainees); 1997a(a), 1997c(a)(1) initiate intervene "egregious flagrant conditions" prisons); 3769a(b), 3769b(a)(1) (requiring governments develop "plan improving precondition receiving funds "relieve overcrowding [and] substandard conditions"). "27. There no standard reporting form weapon mace CCI-Somers." 15. "30. written directives weapons time incident occurred." 16. "32. Written procedure Department Corrections Institution provide gas duster." 17. "42. At neither Administrative Directives CCI-Somers Operational contained doctrine. Neither addressed duster weapons, except mace." 18. included prayer injunction asking "immediately formulate rigid restricting Tear Gas known Duster riot involving multiple inmates where there exist barriers obstructing mace[;] immediately requiring post-incident sprayed adequate medical shower facilities." 23.

Category: 3