1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 WALTER SAYLES, Case No. 21-cv-08243-VKD

9 Petitioner,

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO A

10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE

11 ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT,

12 Respondent.

13 14 On October 22, 2021, Walter Sayles, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming he is eligible for a youth offender parole hearing 16 and that his sentence is unconstitutional. Dkt. No. 1 at 3, 4. He later filed a motion for leave to 17 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 4. Mr. Sayles was convicted and sentenced in 18 Alameda County Superior Court, and he is currently confined in San Luis Obispo, in the Central 19 District of California. 20 On February 25, 2022, the Court transferred the matter to the Central District pursuant to 21 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2). Dkt. No. 8. On March 3, 2022, the Central District transferred the 22 matter back to this Court, observing that the petition requests, among other things, that the 23 Alameda County Superior Court hold a “baseline hearing” to allow Mr. Sayles to make a record of 24 the factors that bear on whether he is entitled to parole based on his age. See Dkt. No. 11. The 25 Central District concluded that the Northern District should consider his petition. Id. This Court 26 concurs. 27 It appears from the face of the petition that Mr. Sayles did not exhaust his state judicial 1 presented his claims to the Alameda County Superior Court, but not to California Supreme Court. 2 || Dkt. No. 1 at5. Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas 3 petition in this Court, Mr. Sayles must have presented to the California Supreme Court any claims 4 he wishes to raise in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 5 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted). He did not. If 6 available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss 7 the petition. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988). The 8 dismissal should be without prejudice to Mr. Sayles refiling once he has exhausted state judicial 9 || remedies, i.e., the state supreme court issues a decision denying relief. 10 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 11 || jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); 12 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 5 13 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 14 || magistrate judge). As it appears that this case requires a decision that disposes of the claims 3 15 against some or all of the respondents at this time, and because not all parties have consented to 16 || magistrate judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge. 3 17 Accordingly, the Clerk shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to the Court’s 18 Assignment Plan. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 10, 2022 21

73 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28