Glover v. Alabama Bd. of Corrections, 80-7875
| Decision Date | 26 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-7875,80-7875 |
| Citation | 660 F.2d 120 |
| Parties | Willie James GLOVER, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. ALABAMA BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, James Towns, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee. . Unit B * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before RONEY, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr. and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellee Glover has petitioned for rehearing of our decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction and remanding to the district court his appeal from judgments in a trial over which a magistrate presided.
The critical issue in this case is whether the magistrate acted under authority of subsection (b) or subsection (c) of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636. If subsection (b) is applicable, as we earlier held, no direct appeal to the Court of Appeals from the magistrate's decision is possible. 1 The statutory basis that is the predicate for an appeal to this Court grants jurisdiction only over "final decisions of the district courts of the United States." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. The decision of a magistrate does not meet the requirements of that statute. Subsection (b) does not grant to a magistrate the authority to render a final judgment. 2 Only a district court can make a magistrate's decision final, and therefore appealable. See, e. g., Calderon v. Waco Lighthouse for the Blind, 630 F.2d 352, 355 n.3 (5th Cir. 1980); United Steelworkers v. Bishop, 598 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1979); Kendall v. Davis, 569 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1978). Moreover, the magistrate's decision is not one of the district court and hence is not appealable under Section 1291. United States v. Haley, 541 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1974).
The magistrate's decision would be final and appealable to this Court if issued under authority of subsection (c). 3 Under subsection (c), a recent amendment to the Magistrates Act, a magistrate specifically designated by the district court and presiding with the consent of the litigants may enter a final judgment, from which, absent consent of the parties to appeal to the district court, an aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeals. 4
We held earlier that the magistrate must have acted under authority of subsection (b) because he was appointed to the case prior to October 10, 1979, the effective date of subsection (c). The record indicates, however, that, although the magistrate was handling procedural matters in this case prior to October 10, he was not actually assigned the trial of the case until January 14, 1980. By that time local rules concerning the authority of magistrates had been changed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c) and the presiding magistrate had been designated capable of receiving cases under that subsection. Moreover, one court has held, though with little discussion, that it would not apply subsection (c) to a dispute in part because the trial occurred before the provision became effective. Calderon, supra, 630 F.2d at 353-54 n.1. Under such a standard, the magistrate in this case could have acted under authority of subsection (c).
Rather than rely either on the time of the magistrate's appointment to a case or on the time of trial as a gauge for determining the subsection under the authority of which the magistrate acted, we believe a better analysis involves determining the scope of authority to which the parties consented. The dates on which the parties consented to trial before a magistrate, January 9, 1980, for the defendants and January 10, 1980, for the plaintiff, indicate that either subsection might be applicable. The ambiguous wording of the consent form that the parties signed provides no further guidance, since the language does not indicate under which subsection the magistrate would have jurisdiction:
I understand, absent consent of all parties, that this case will be tried before a United States District Judge.
I hereby consent to the Magistrate's exercising jurisdiction in the above-styled case.
For reasons discussed below we must interpret the language of the parties' consent narrowly to apply only to the magistrate's exercise of jurisdiction under authority of subsection (b).
An initial reason why we do not interpret the consent form as conferring jurisdiction under subsection (c), and why, indeed, we would hold that the magistrate could not have acted under the authority of that subsection even if the parties had intended otherwise, is that the form does not meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subsection (c), which states that
(i)f a magistrate is designated to exercise civil jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the clerk of court shall, at the time the action is filed, notify the parties of their right to consent to the exercise of such jurisdiction .... Rules of the court for the reference of civil matters to magistrates shall include procedures to protect the voluntariness of the parties' consent.
The clerk could not have notified the parties of their right to consent under subsection (c) when the action was filed since the amendment had not been passed at that time. Also, the wording of paragraph (2) suggests that it is the duty of the clerk to make clear to the parties that their consent would be under subsection (c), not (b). The form at issue here, however, does not distinguish between consent to a magistrate's authority exercised under subsection (b) and consent under subsection (c). Finally, the statute's requirement that court rules ensure the voluntariness of the parties' consent reinforces the need for a clear statement by the parties before granting the magistrate authority under subsection (c).
More fundamental reasons also require us to construe narrowly the consent of the parties. First, the Supreme Court has stated that the Constitution requires that the judicial power of the United States be vested in courts having judges with life tenure and undiminishable compensation in order to protect judicial acts from executive or legislative coercion. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 531, 53 S.Ct. 740, 743, 77 L.Ed. 1356 (1933). A decision without consent by a magistrate, a non-Article III judge, would undermine this objective of the Constitution and might violate the rights of the parties. See DeCosta v. Columbia Broadcasting Co., 520 F.2d 499, 503-06 (1st Cir. 1975) (), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1073, 96 S.Ct. 856, 47 L.Ed.2d 83 (1976); Ellis v. Buchkoe, 491 F.2d 716, 717 (6th Cir. 1974) (); Note, "Masters and Magistrates in the Federal Courts," 85 Harv.L.Rev. 779, 780-89 (1975). Second, the emphasis on the consent requirement in Congressional debates on the amendment evinces a desire for a clear expression of consent by the parties before allowing a magistrate authority under subsection (c). Calderon, supra, 630 F.2d at 353-54 n.1.
We interpret the consent of the parties as given in this case as extending only to the jurisdiction of the magistrate under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b).
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
* Former Fifth Circuit case, Section 9(1) of Public Law 96-452 October 14, 1980.
1 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b) provides:
(b)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate 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 any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.
(C) the magistrate shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.
Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co.
...28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b) are not final orders and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court. Glover v. Alabama Board of Corrections, 660 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit The principal consideration prompting the requirement of formal judicial review, and indeed the concept......
-
Moore v. Aegon Reinsurance Co. of America
... ... Bank & Trust Co., 590 F.2d 403; Matter of Mackin, 668 F.2d 122; Glover v. Alabama Board of Corrections, 651 F.2d 1014, reh'g denied, 660 F.2d ... ...
-
U.S. v. Muhammad
...which our court stated that "[c]onsent to trial by a magistrate [judge] under [§ ] 636(c) cannot be implied"; Glover v. Alabama Bd. of Corrections, 660 F.2d 120, 124 (5th Cir.1981) (citations omitted), in which our court stated that Congress intended to require "a clear expression of consen......
-
King v. Ionization Intern., Inc.
...order issued under that subsection; and so the courts have held with respect to (b) generally, see, e.g., Glover v. Alabama Bd. of Corrections, 660 F.2d 120, 121-22 (5th Cir.1981). The only part of the statute that expressly authorizes the magistrate to enter a final judgment appealable dir......