Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAMAR HENDRIX CAUSEY, Case No. 20-cv-06630-RMI 8 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 9 Vv. REASSIGN CASE 10 ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent. 12

& 13 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent before a magistrate judge 14 has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) to hear and decide a case. See Williams v. King, 875 3 15 || F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss case on initial 16 || review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before magistrate judge). It 5 17 || appears that this case requires a decision dispositive of one or more defendants or claims at this 18 || time because Petitioner has not shown the sort of extraordinary circumstances described in 19 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), and consent of all parties has not been obtained. 20 || Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to the court’s 21 || assignment plan. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: February 24, 2021 24 Mt Z 25 6 RQBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 27 28