Masood v. Barr
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-07623
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Masood v. Barr, Judge Demarchi ordered reassignment to a district judge because Sheriff Anderson had not indicated whether he consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
Ady Masood, the named respondents, and the handling of Masood’s detention petition; the case was reassigned and its pending hearings and appearances were vacated.
What happened
Masood v. Barr concerns Ady Masood’s petition challenging his detention in immigration custody at the Yuba County Jail. He named several federal and local officials as respondents.
The court had asked the parties to say whether they consented to a magistrate judge handling the case. The U.S. Attorney responded for three federal respondents but said he did not represent Sheriff Anderson, who did not respond.
Judge Demarchi ordered the case reassigned to a district judge. She also vacated pending hearings and scheduled appearances, which the newly assigned judge will reset.
The detailed version
- Masood v. Barr · No. 3:19-cv-07623
- James Donato
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Ady Masood, described as a detainee in immigration custody, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2243 challenging his detention at the Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California. He named Attorney General William P. Barr, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director Erik Bonnar, and Yuba County Sheriff-Coroner Wendell Anderson as respondents.
On November 21, 2019, the court ordered the parties to file a consent or declination regarding magistrate-judge jurisdiction by December 4, 2019, and set a briefing schedule. The U.S. Attorney entered an appearance and responded for Barr, Wolf, and Bonnar, but expressly stated that the U.S. Attorney did not represent Sheriff Anderson. Anderson had not appeared and had not filed anything indicating whether he consented to or declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court stated that the case had to be referred to a district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the cited Ninth Circuit precedent. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the case reassigned to a district judge. She also vacated all pending motion hearings and scheduled appearances, to be reset by the newly assigned judge. The order did not decide the substance of Masood’s detention challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.