894 F.2d 187 - Woods v. Dahlberg — 894 F.2d 187

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably McGore v. Wrigglesworth (1997), Lister v. Department of Treasury (2005)

15 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Ernest Ralph Ellis, Sr., Cambridge, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant in no. 89-3992.

¶2Brian J. Woods, Mansfield, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant in no. 89-3991.

¶3Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Office of the Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant-appellee Anthony Brigano.

¶4Before MILBURN and GUY, Circuit Judges, and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6These appeals have been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The panel has consolidated the appeals since they raise the same issue.

¶7Plaintiffs have both appealed from magistrate orders denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Sua sponte, we address the issue of whether magistrates have authority to deny a motion for pauper status and conclude that they do not.

¶8The jurisdiction of magistrates is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. Section 636(b)(1)(A) provides:

(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 sub-paragraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

¶9Although section 636(b)(1)(A) does not specifically reference a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we conclude that a denial of such a motion is the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal and is outside the scope of a magistrate’s authority.1

¶10 *188A district judge is free to refer a motion for pauper status to a magistrate and if the decision is to grant such a motion, the magistrate may enter such an order. If the decision is to deny, however, the magistrate must make such a recommendation to the district judge who will then take final action. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).2

¶11These two cases are REMANDED to the district court for a decision by the district judge as to whether pauper status should be denied. The remands are without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to appeal in the event pauper status is denied.3