Ruffin v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SHAWN RUFFIN, Case No. 20-cv-07826-VKD

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO A v. DISTRICT JUDGE

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Shawn Ruffin appears to be a pretrial detainee at the San Francisco County Jail. He filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and numerous employees thereof. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. On March 5, 2021, the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed it with leave to amend, affording Mr. Ruffin an opportunity to plead facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection. Dkt. No. 9. Mr. Ruffin was directed to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date the order was filed. Id. at 6. He was advised that failure to do so would result in this matter being reassigned to a district judge with the recommendation that the matter be dismissed without further notice to plaintiff. Id. That deadline has passed, and the Court has received no further communications from Mr. Ruffin. 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 amended complaint in the time provided, and because not all parties have consented to magistrate || judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge.

3 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to || the Court’s assignment plan.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: April 21, 2021 «8

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 9 United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18