Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-06630
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Illman ordered reassignment because a decision ending claims may be needed without consent from all parties.
The reassignment affects petitioner Lamar Hendrix Causey and respondent Alameda County Superior Court.
What happened
Lamar Hendrix Causey brought this case against Alameda County Superior Court. The order addressed which judge should handle the case, not the underlying claims.
The court explained that every named party, including parties who had not been served, must consent before a magistrate judge can decide the case. It also said Causey had not shown the extraordinary circumstances described in Younger v. Harris and that all-party consent had not been obtained.
Judge Robert M. Illman ordered the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court’s assignment plan. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court · No. 4:20-cv-06630
- Yvonne Rogers
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Lamar Hendrix Causey is the petitioner, and Alameda County Superior Court is the respondent. The opinion is an order about assigning the case to a judge.
Reason for Reassignment
The court explained that a magistrate judge may exercise authority to hear and decide a case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) only when all named parties consent. That requirement includes defendants who have not been served. The court cited Williams v. King for this rule.
The court stated that the case appeared to require a decision that could dispose of one or more defendants or claims because Causey had not shown the type of extraordinary circumstances described in Younger v. Harris. The court also stated that all parties had not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
Order
The court directed the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge under the court’s assignment plan. The order did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.