Reed v. California Department of Corrections

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION CHARLES CHRISTOPHER REED, Case No. 19-cv-07937-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO A 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE 11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

14 Plaintiff Charles Christopher Reed, a state prisoner at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil rights action in pro se for an injury that occurred while working in the prison kitchen.

16 Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Reed consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 2. Mr. Reed was twice permitted to file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies in the pleadings. Dkt. Nos. 9, 11.

18 Mr. Reed has filed a second amended complaint which fails to correct the deficiencies from his previous filings and is therefore subject to dismissal for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Dkt. No. 12.

21 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 at least one defendant at this time, and because not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge.

1 the Court’s assignment plan.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: November 3, 2020 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 6 United States Magistrate Judge

= 17 Z 18