A prisoner suing a number of correctional officers for allegedly violating his Eighth Amendment rights consented to the magistrate judge having jurisdiction over the case, but the officers never did. Despite this, the magistrate granted the defendant officers' motion to dismiss the case for alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Because the officers never formally consented to the magistrate's jurisdiction to decide the case, the judgment dismissing the case was a nullity, and further proceedings were required. Allen v. Meyer, #11-16714, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 11639 (9th Cir.).
     New York federal trial court properly dismissed a lawsuit by an inmate claiming that the broadcast of professional football games in his Georgia prison violated his "civil and constitutional rights." The prisoner failed to show a specific federally protected right which was allegedly violated by these broadcasts, so there was no jurisdiction over his lawsuit on the basis of an issue of federal law. Further, the proper place for him to have filed his lawsuit was in a federal court in Georgia, not New York. Barber v. United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District, No. 05-2038, 166 Fed. Appx. 504 (2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Prisoner allegedly sexually assaulted in another prisoner's cell after being brought there by a prison guard failed to show that other prison officials violated his constitutional rights in failing to protect him. Rather than acting with deliberate indifference, prison officials promptly acted to transfer him to another facility for his protection after learning that he felt unsafe, even in protective custody. Prisoner is awarded $6,000 in damages in default judgment against prison guard. Further proceedings ordered on whether Florida prisoner incarcerated in Kansas for protective reasons was still a citizen of Florida, entitled to federal court jurisdiction over his Kansas state-law claims against Kansas prison officials. Smith v. Cummings, No. 05-3180. 445 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2006). [2006 JB Jul]
     An order dismissing a prisoner's medical malpractice claim against a doctor who allegedly improperly treated him with anti-psychotic drugs did not also dismiss his federal constitutional claim and his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, so that a certification of his case for immediate appeal was improper, requiring dismissal of the appeal for absence of appellate jurisdiction. Mack v. Maloney, #01-1888, 34 Fed. Appx. 1 (1st Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner's course of conduct in failing to object to trial of his federal civil rights claim for alleged inadequate medical care by a federal magistrate judge, and purported post-trial consent, could not cure the jurisdictional defect "inherent" in the failure to obtain express consent from all parties prior to a trial conducted by a magistrate judge, as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1). Accordingly, a federal appeals court vacated and remanded the jury's verdict for the defendants in the case. Withrow v. Roell, #00-40627, 288 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     A private individual and a federal public defender did not have a "significant relationship" with an accused U.S.-born al-Quaeda suspect being held in a naval brig which would allow them to act as his "next friend" and file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf. Both persons admitted having no prior relationship with the prisoner but claimed that they should be able to act on his behalf anyway because they could demonstrate that they were dedicated to acting in his "best interest." Rejecting this line of reasoning, the appeals court stated that granting standing to act in this manner in the absence of a "significant relationship" with the prisoner would "be opening the flood gates of federal litigation" to "intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves next friends." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 02-6827, 294 F.3d 598 (4th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Members of a class who are not named class representatives may still appeal settlements of federal class action lawsuits. Devlin v. Scardelletti, #01-417, 122 S. Ct. 2005 (2002). [N/R]
     Sheriff properly removed federal civil rights lawsuit filed by prisoner's estate in state court to federal court even when other defendants objected to removal when he did so before the other defendants had been served. Deputy's right to object to sheriff's removal of case to federal court was limited by statute, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1146, 1147(c), and 1148. Schmude v. Sheahan, 198 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
          [N/R] A New York state statute which limited individual capacity lawsuits against correctional department officials to being filed in the state Court of Claims did not apply to bar an official capacity civil rights lawsuit against them in federal court. Brown v. Coughlin, 869 F.Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).