Joseph C. Roell, Petra Garibay, and James Reagan v. Jon Michael Withrow (538 U.S. 580)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 29, 2003 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 538 U.S. 580 · 123 S. Ct. 1696
- Decided
- April 29, 2003
- Term
- October Term 2002
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Magistrate Act of 1979 (Federal Magistrate Act or Act) expanded the power of magistrate judges by authorizing them to conduct “any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case,” as long as they are “specially designated ... by the district court” and are acting “[u]pon the consent of the parties.” 28 U. S. C. § 636(c)(1). The question is whether consent can be inferred from a party’s conduct during litigation, and we hold that it can be. I Respondent Jon Michael Withrow is a Texas state prisoner who brought an action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, against members of the prison’s medical staff, petitioners Joseph Roell, Petra Garibay, and James Reagan, alleging that they had deliberately disregarded his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976). During a preliminary hearing before a Magistrate Judge to determine whether the suit could proceed in forma pauperis, see 28 U. S. C. § 1915, the Magistrate Judge told Withrow that he could choose to have her rather than the District Judge preside over the entire case. App. 10-11. Withrow agreed orally, id., at 11, and later in writing, App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a. A lawyer from the Texas attorney general’s office who attended the hearing, but was not…
Excerpt of a 20,794-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.