1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DAVID TERRELL CUNNINGHAM, Case No. 20-cv-02191-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE

11 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 David Terrell Cunningham, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 15 complaint pursuant to

against Alameda County Sheriff’s Department officers. 16 Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Cunningham has failed to file a completed application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis by June 4, 2020, as the Court directed him to do in its last order granting him an 18 extension of time to do so. Dkt. No. 6. This action is therefore subject to dismissal.

19 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 20 jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See

(c)(1); 21 Williams v. King,

, 501–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 22 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 23 magistrate judge). As it appears that this case requires a decision that disposes of the claims 24 against some or all of the defendants at this time, and because not all parties have consented to 25 magistrate judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge. 26 Accordingly, the Clerk shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to the Court’s 27 Assignment Plan. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: June 12, 2020 3 4 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

15

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28