Penunuri v. Davis

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION RICHARD PENUNURI, Case No. 19-cv-06112-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE 11 RON DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

14 Plaintiff Richard Penunuri, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against prison officers at San Quentin State Prison where he is currently incarcerated. Mr. Penunuri names the Warden as a defendant, but it appears that he does not allege facts that are sufficient to state a cognizable claim against the Warden.

18 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before magistrate judge). As it appears that this case requires a decision that disposes of the claims against some or all of the defendants at this time, and because not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge.

25 Accordingly, the Clerk shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to the Court’s Assignment Plan.

27 /// 1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated: December 19, 2019 . 28 □ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 5 United States Magistrate Judge

© = 17 Z 18