Cunningham
Cunningham v. Alameda CountySheriff's Department
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DAVID TERRELL CUNNINGHAM, Case No. 20-cv-02191-VKD
9 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO
10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE
11 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants.
13 14 David Terrell Cunningham, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 15 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Alameda County Sheriff’s Department officers. 16 Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Cunningham has failed to file a completed application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis by June 4, 2020, as the Court directed him to do in its last order granting him an 18 extension of time to do so. Dkt. No. 6. This action is therefore subject to dismissal. Id. 19 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 20 jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); 21 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 22 dismiss…