1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SHAWN RUFFIN, Case No. 20-cv-07826-VKD

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

11 SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, 12 Defendant.

13 14 Pro se plaintiff Shawn Ruffin appears to be a pretrial detainee at the San Francisco County 15 Jail. He filed this civil rights action pursuant to

against the San Francisco 16 Sheriff’s Department and numerous employees thereof. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. On March 5, 2021, the 17 Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed it with leave to 18 amend, affording Mr. Ruffin an opportunity to plead facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim 19 under the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection. Dkt. No. 9. Mr. Ruffin was directed to 20 file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date the order was filed. Id. at 6. He 21 was advised that failure to do so would result in this matter being reassigned to a district judge 22 with the recommendation that the matter be dismissed without further notice to plaintiff. Id. That 23 deadline has passed, and the Court has received no further communications from Mr. Ruffin. 24 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 25 jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See

(c)(1); 26 Williams v. King,

, 501–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 27 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 1 amended complaint in the time provided, and because not all parties have consented to magistrate 2 || 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 4 || the Court’s assignment plan. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: April 21, 2021 4 «8 8 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

15

16

17

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