Document: 538 U.S. 580 ROELL ET AL.v.WITHROW. No. 02-69. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 26, 2003. Decided April 29, The Federal Magistrate Act 1979 (Act) empowers full-time magistrate judges to conduct "any or all proceedings in a jury nonjury civil matter and order the entry judgment case," as long they are "specially designated ... by district court" acting with "the consent parties." 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Respondent Withrow, state prisoner, brought an action under 42 1983 against members prison's medical staff, petitioners Roell, Garibay, Reagan, alleging that had deliberately disregarded his needs violation Eighth Amendment. During preliminary hearing, Judge told Withrow he could choose have her rather than District preside over entire case. agreed orally later writing, but did not at point give their consent. Without waiting for decision, referred case final disposition, caveat would opportunity jurisdiction, referral be vacated if any them Only Reagan gave written referral; Roell Garibay said nothing about referral. nevertheless proceeded front Judge, way verdict petitioners. voluntarily participated course voiced no objection when, several points, made it clear she believed consented. When appealed, Fifth Circuit sua sponte remanded determine whether parties consented proceed before Judge. then file formal letter stating prior Circuit's enquiry same who reported actions clearly implied ruled lacked jurisdiction because, precedent, such expressly given. adopted report recommendation. affirmed, holding that, 636(c)(1), lack defects nonwaivable jurisdictional errors, 636(c) must express, petitioners' postjudgment was inadequate Act. Held: Consent judge's designation can inferred from party's during litigation. Roell's Garibay's general appearances after been right tried judge, supply necessary Judge's "civil jurisdiction" It is true 636(c)(2) Rule Civil Procedure 73(b), which establish procedures 636(c)(1) referral, envision advance, communicated clerk. This procedure means just advisory, courts bound adhere strictly it. But text structure whole indicate defect does eliminate fact So far concerns judges, font judge authority, speaks only parties," without qualification form, 636(c)(3) similarly provides "[t]he allows" enter final, appealable court. These unadorned references "consent parties" contrast language covering certain part-time requires consent, do so "specific request." In addition, there good pragmatic reason think Congress intended permit giving case-dispositive hoped relieve courts' caseload while still preserving every litigant's insist on trial Article III judge. Strict insistence express requirement embodied minimize risk latter objective, create even greater former one: full complicated wasted option undeserving possibly opportunistic litigant. Here, consent; thus received protection statute deserves boon other side's failure. Had outcome different, shoe might foot; bright line let position hedge bets, keeping poker face conceal failure sandbagging side when turned out liking. preferable rule, better mix congressional objectives, infer appearance having Pp. 585-591. 288 F. 3d 199, reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, joined, post, p. 591. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. Lisa R. Eskow, Deputy Solicitor General Texas, argued cause With briefs were Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Philip A. Lionberger, Ted Cruz, Melanie P. Sarwal, Assistant Charles K. Eldred, General. Amanda Frost respondent. brief Brian Wolfman. JUSTICE SOUTER Court. 1 (Federal Act) expanded power authorizing "[u]pon U. S. question litigation, we hold be. 2 * Jon Michael Texas prisoner Rev. Stat. 1979, 1983, Joseph Petra James See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 97 (1976). hearing suit forma pauperis, see 1915, App. 10-11. orally, id., 11, Pet. Cert. 20a. A lawyer attorney general's office attended permanently assigned Withrow's case, indicated "talk attorneys [the petitioners] will execute forms." 11. 3 "all defendants [would] given judge," 21a. Clerk sent along summons directing include "[i]n answer separate pleading statement `All States Judge' Judge.'" 13. advised court shall consent." Ibid. represented private counsel, assistant office, answers 17a. 4 Appeals "determine and, so, consents oral written." Id., 13a. "they this date including disposition motion summary trial." 22a. 5 nonetheless Appeals's conducted trial, "by [Roell Garibay] magistrate." 19a. She surely correct, record shows consented.1 observed, however, precedent cannot 18a, accordingly concluded sending meant hear ibid. recommendation objection. 14a-15a. 6 affirmed agreeing "[w]hen, pursuant enters [a] judgment, reference errors" waived. 201 (CA5 2002). also reaffirmed its "§ express; parties' conduct." Finally, appellate decided satisfy 636(c)(1)'s requirement. 203. We granted certiorari, 537 999 (2002), now reverse. II 7 parties, may specially exercise court." Unlike nonconsensual referrals pretrial matters 636(b)(1), leave free sees fit recommendations, gives authority dispositive motions, review. entered "a [§ 636(c)(1)]" treated court, "in manner appeal 636(c)(3).2 8 Section establishes "If 636(c)(1)], clerk shall, time filed, notify availability jurisdiction." 636(c)(2). Within required local decision 73(b) specifies election memorialized joint form forms setting forth election," Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Form 34, neither nor "shall informed response clerk's notification, unless judge." created envisions clerk, being preserve confidentiality choice, interest protecting objecting party possible prejudice hands on. ("Rules protect voluntariness consent"). 9 course, honored breach, them, oral, until judgment. Nonetheless, "clearly consent" appear expressing reservation, notified refuse authority. Ibid.3 shown count conferring adherence absolute demand. 10 judges,4 Cf. 18 3401(b) (allowing misdemeanor trials defendant "expressly writing record"). distinction between simple, expressed And although specific section suggest King Ionization Int'l, Inc., 825 2d 1180, 1185 (CA7 1987) (noting "does require consent").5 11 textual clues complemented "mounting queue cases" thereby "improve access groups." Rep. 96-74, (1979); H. 96-287, (1979) (The Act's main object supplementary judicial designed meet ebb flow demands judiciary"). At time, though, insulated interference obligation ignore everything merits Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n Schor, 478 833, 848 (1986) (Article protects litigants' "`right claims potential domination branches government'" (quoting Will, 449 200, 218 (1980))). concern possibility coercive prompted make voluntary decision." Conf. 96-322, ("The bill prerequisite magistrate's new jurisdiction. committee firmly believes pressure, tacit expressed, should applied litigants induce magistrates"); "creates vehicle freely voluntarily, less formal, more rapid, expensive resolving controversies").6 12 When, here, has signaled through words, what objectives. On one hand, virtue strict simply value line: absolutely minimal compromising another risk, insisting raise it: us following notice elect judge; statute, cross line. fact, unworthiness, since rules unmet responsibility plaintiff get completed Gen. Order 80-5, Art. III(B)(2) (SD Tex., June 16, 1980), 5, Brief Opposition 7a. allow sit back word vacate 13 worth downside. rule accept where, litigant counsel aware need it, appeared try Inferring these circumstances checks gamesmanship depriving luxury denying Judicial efficiency served; substantially honored. supra, 849-850 (finding "effective[ly] waive[d]" deciding "to seek relief [Commodity Commission] federal courts"); Raddatz, 447 667, 676, n. (1980) (eschewing construction tend "frustrate plain objective alleviate increasing congestion litigation courts").7 14 636(c)(1).8 reverse remand consistent opinion. 15 ordered. Notes: least three different occasions, present stood silent stated First, status teleconference involving addition defendant, Danny Knutson, settled dropped suit, my 18. Petitioners denied, noting "this undersigned further proceedings, accordance 636(c)(1)." 26a. finally, selection, panel both sides caseId., 27a. Prior 1996 amendments Act, Courts Improvement 1996, Pub. L. 104-317, 207(1)(B), 110 3850, appeals." 636(c)(4) (1994 ed.) (repealed 1996). If pursued, appeals grant court's 636(c)(5) (same). events, initial 636(c)(4), retained ultimate review (same) Black's Law Dictionary 95 (7th ed. 1999) ("`The term "appearance" designate[s] overt act [a party] submits himself jurisdiction.... An declaration, entry, some done intention appearing submitting jurisdiction'" Am. Jur. 2d, Appearance 1, 620 (1995))) dispute presided evidence cited dissent conclusive. focuses allows "[u]pon" concludes temporal connotation forecloses accepting timing expression, perfectly sequence events envisioned instead commonly understood first court," J. Ballentine, Pronunciations 91 (2d 1948), subsequent occur Furthermore, hardly true, contrary dissent's claim, 594 (opinion J.), pointless permitted Certainly, notification inference aspect 636(c)(2)'s preserved. undoubtedly able communicate guard reprisals either forgoes procedural opportunity, subject jurisdiction," indicates is. Originally, third sentence provided once "neither attempt persuade 93 643. 1990 amended provide made, "either again advise magistrate, doing, withhold adverse substantive consequences." Improvements 1990, 101-650, 308, 104 5112. change reflected Congress's diminishing communication lead referrals. 101-734, 27 (1990) doubt interpretation runs serious "spawn[ing] second significant dimension."Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. West Virginia Dept. Health Human Resources, 532 598, 609 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). place, exception, since, discuss above, remain requirements 73(b). 586, 587-588, 5. surmises, 596, our raises "ambiguities" supported particular greatly exaggerated: usually whatever "second[ary] litigation" exist pales comparison inefficiency unfairness requiring relitigation like these. Because conclude impliedly address sufficient where implied. decide correct "jurisdictional defect" raised 16 whom KENNEDY join, dissenting. 17 provision interpret reads: "Upon judgment." majority holds commencement Rather, "where Judge." Ante, 590. view, text, fails respect statutory scheme, constitutional concerns. I believe proper therefore, reviewing inquire into consent's validity. 19 There two prongs majority's holding: (1) actual (2) explicit, conduct. Neither conclusions correct. 20 As already noted, carry functions Congress' use "upon" suggests precede "Upon" defined "immediately very soon after." Random House English Language 1570 (1966). Thus, precondition power; Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic Am., Instromedix, 725 537, 540 (CA9 1984) (en banc) (Kennedy, J.). 21 used mean "thereafter" parts well. For example, 636(h) "magistrate retired may, upon chief involved, recalled serve judge...." (Emphasis added.) Clearly, return post consents. Similarly, 636(e)(3) uses "subsequent to." That subsection grants contempt, conditions imposition contempt sanctions "upon Criminal Procedure." is, held hearing. normal "assumes identical words meaning," Sorenson Secretary Treasury, 475 851, 860 (citations internal omitted), "thereafter," §§ (e)(3). By allowing "inferred litigation," ante, 582 (emphasis added), disregards meaning "upon." 22 conclusion implied, suffices borne itself scheme whole. relevant clause "consent," addressing 587 premise command draws. Both clauses mandating — request. 23 reading most scheme. Despite concession 73 "are advisory," 587, weight. "at filed," "decision [whether consent] filing affirmatively expressly. Indeed, find quite difficult "communicat[e]" undertaken "during added). view monitor behavior courtroom determine, specified majority, ripened reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, deemed "consent" within 24 fortifies reading. mirrors provisions informing chose so. ("When consent," agree, . ." added)). 25 Read together, foregoing binding B 26 While agree "meant 588, prevent "coercive referrals," 589, follow Court's "settled policy avoid engenders issues." Gomez States, 490 858, 864 (1989). "A critical limitation [the] [of judges] 870. Reading ensures knowingly waive unambiguous indication waiving right. Aetna Ins. Co. Kennedy ex rel. Bogash, 301 389, 393 (1937) (holding request directed verdicts, jury, observing "courts indulge presumption waiver"); Ohio Bell Telephone Public Util. Ohio, 292, 307 telephone company property determined presented open opposing consolidation "[w]e presume acquiescence loss fundamental rights"). Moreover, test determining adequate Judge," 590 rife ambiguities. How "was it"? Are search beyond rights requisite sign? Can rely, applicable, participation unrelated judge? constitutes "voluntariness" context seems depend, part, establishing counsel's awareness rights. 29 Although brushes aside prudential implications reading, 591, ("We `spawn[ing] dimension.' Buckhannon (2001)"), novel proposition bright-line easier administer. And, certainly adjudicating validity statute. required, study proceeding case-by-case basis, searching patterns indicia newly minted, vague, brings clarity predictability, light values discounted. 30 Given uncertainties surrounding determination surprising claim satisfied muster honored." However, protected not. suggests, safeguard offered hope "procedural 73(b)" complied with. 7. offers credible solution circumstances, ones followed. 31 Even apart canon avoidance, fairness alludes 588-590 weigh favor According respondent "possibly litigant," "deserves line," record, respondent, pro se below, manipulated system. side" State repeat player, own familiar courts. issue Appeals, considered sponte. 32 here next consider destroys does, thus, indeed 33 exercises 636(c)(3), provides: 34 paragraph subsection, aggrieved directly appropriate direct 35 Under judgments depends satisfied. Absence absence "judgment," which, turn, 636, appeals' valid hence, integral part inquiry existence permits examine 36 de facto officer doctrine contrary. "prevent[s] abiding lawsuit overturning technicality previously aware." Glidden Zdanok, 370 530, 535 (1962) (plurality opinion). Examples "technicalities" appointment designation. See, e. g., Ex parte Ward, 173 452, 456 (1899) (judge improperly appointed Senate recess); Wright 158 232, 238 (1895) (deputy marshal whose oath properly administered); McDowell 159 601-602 improper statute); Ball 140 118, 128-129 (1891) sitting place deceased substitution disabled judge). inapplicable "when alleged operates Ayrshire Collieries Corp. 331 132 (three-judge court); Emholt, 105 414 (certificate divided opinion)." Glidden, S., Additionally, claimed restrict merely technical embodies strong concerning administration business, `jurisdictional' though earliest practicable opportunity." 535-536. "embodies policy" ensuring voluntarily. mere "technicality." Sections 636(c)(2), explicitly importance touchstone 37 38 below instructions dismiss subject-matter respectfully dissent.

Category: 8