Reed v. California Department of Corrections
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-07937
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Reed v. California Department of Corrections, Judge Demarchi reassigned the pro se case because not all parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction.
Charles Christopher Reed and the defendants in the case, including defendants who had not been served; the case was reassigned to a district judge.
What happened
Charles Christopher Reed v. California Department of Corrections is a civil-rights case brought by Reed, a state prisoner, over an injury while working in a prison kitchen. He filed the case without a lawyer and consented to a magistrate judge handling it.
Reed filed a second amended complaint after being allowed two opportunities to correct problems in earlier pleadings. The order says the second amended complaint still failed to state a legally recognizable claim and could be dismissed, but this order did not dismiss the case.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi reassigned the case to a district judge because all parties, including defendants who had not been served, had not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The order therefore addressed assignment of the case rather than the merits of Reed’s claims.
The detailed version
- Reed v. California Department of Corrections · No. 3:19-cv-07937
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 3, 2020
Background
Charles Christopher Reed, identified as a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer concerning an injury that occurred while he was working in the prison kitchen. Reed consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. He was twice allowed to amend his complaint to correct pleading deficiencies. His second amended complaint allegedly failed to correct those deficiencies and was described as subject to dismissal for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
Reason for Reassignment
The court explained that a magistrate judge may hear and decide the case only if all named parties, including defendants who have not been served, consent to that jurisdiction. Because the case appeared to require a decision disposing of claims against at least one defendant and not all parties had consented, the matter had to be reassigned to a district judge.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered reassignment to a district judge under the court’s assignment plan. This order did not itself dismiss the complaint or decide whether Reed’s claims had merit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.