Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 19, 2019

Penunuri v. Davis

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:19-cv-06112
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil RightsPro Se
In one sentence

In Penunuri v. Davis, Judge Demarchi reassigned the prisoner’s civil-rights case because not all parties consented to a magistrate judge.

Who this affects

Richard Penunuri and the defendants in his civil-rights action were affected because the case was reassigned from a magistrate judge to a district judge for further handling.

What happened

Penunuri v. Davis is a civil-rights case brought by state prisoner Richard Penunuri against prison officers at San Quentin State Prison. The filing was made without a lawyer, and it named the warden as a defendant.

The court noted that Penunuri appeared not to have alleged enough facts for a valid claim against the warden. Because deciding that issue could dispose of claims and all parties—including defendants who had not been served—had not agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge, the case had to be reassigned.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court’s assignment plan. This order did not decide whether Penunuri’s claims ultimately succeed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Penunuri v. Davis · No. 3:19-cv-06112
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Dec. 19, 2019

Background

Richard Penunuri, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action against prison officers at San Quentin State Prison. He named the warden as a defendant, but the court stated that it appeared he had not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that the law recognizes against the warden.

Reason for Reassignment

A magistrate judge may hear and decide a case only if all named parties, including defendants who have not yet been served, consent to that jurisdiction. The court determined that reassignment was necessary because the case appeared to require a decision that could dispose of claims against some or all defendants, and not all parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court’s assignment plan. The order addressed which judge should handle the case; it did not decide the merits of Penunuri’s civil-rights claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.