Roell v. Withro

538 U.S.580 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Withrow (P). a Texas state prisoner, brought an action under § 1983, against members of the prison's medical staff, Joseph Roell (Ds), Petra Garibay, and James Reagan, alleging that they had deliberately disregarded his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Magistrate Judge told Withrow (P) that he could choose to have her rather than the District Judge preside over the entire case. P agreed orally and later in writing. Without waiting for Ds' decision, the District Judge referred the case to the Magistrate Judge for final disposition, but with the caveat that 'all defendants [would] be given an opportunity to consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge,' and that the referral order would be vacated if any of the defendants did not consent. On at least three different occasions, counsel for Roell and Garibay was present and stood silent when the Magistrate Judge stated that they had consented to her authority. The case nevertheless proceeded in front of the Magistrate Judge, all the way to a jury verdict and judgment for Ds. When P appealed, the Court of Appeals sua sponte remanded the case to the District Court to 'determine whether the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and, if so, whether the consents were oral or written.' It was only then that Roell and Garibay filed a formal letter of consent with the District Court, stating that 'they consented to all proceedings before this date before the United States Magistrate Judge, including disposition of their motion for summary judgment and trial.' The Magistrate, the District Court, and the Fifth Circuit all held that express consent was needed prior to the Magistrate judge taking the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.