Cunningham v. Alameda CountySheriff's Department
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-02191
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cunningham v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department, Judge Demarchi reassigned the case because not all parties consented to a magistrate judge.
The reassignment affected David Terrell Cunningham and the named defendants, including defendants who had not yet been served. The case was moved from the magistrate judge to a district judge for further decisions.
What happened
David Terrell Cunningham, a pretrial detainee representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law known as Section 1983 against officers of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. He had not filed the completed application needed to proceed without paying court fees by the deadline the court had set after granting him more time.
The order explained that the case could be subject to dismissal because of the missing application. But a magistrate judge could not decide a matter that might dispose of claims unless all parties, including defendants who had not been served, consented to that judge's authority. The record did not show that all parties had consented.
The court ordered the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court's assignment plan. The order did not itself dismiss the case. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order on June 12, 2020.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. Alameda CountySheriff's Department · No. 5:20-cv-02191
- Edward Davila
- June 12, 2020
Background
David Terrell Cunningham, a pretrial detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Alameda County Sheriff's Department officers. The opinion states that he failed to file a completed application to proceed without paying the required filing fees by June 4, 2020, despite an earlier order granting him an extension of time. The court stated that the action was therefore subject to dismissal.
Reason for Reassignment
The order addressed whether a magistrate judge could decide the case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), all named parties—including defendants who had not been served—must consent before a magistrate judge can hear and decide the case. Because the case appeared to require a decision that could dispose of claims against some or all defendants, and not all parties had consented, the matter had to be reassigned to a district judge.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court's Assignment Plan. This order reassigned the case; it did not itself grant or deny a dismissal motion and did not itself dismiss the action. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi on June 12, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.