Saif'ullah v. Bloomfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 KHALIFAH E.D. SAIF'ULLAH, Case No. 20-cv-04109-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO A 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE 11 RON BLOOMFIELD, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff Khalifah E. D. Saif’ullah, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 15 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various defendants for allegedly inhumane living 16 conditions at San Quentin State Prison where he is currently incarcerated. Dkt. No. 1 at 4–6. Mr. 17 Saif’ullah is suing defendants in their “official and individual capacity” and also claims that 18 defendants are “vicariously liable for the acts and/or omission of its employees and/or agents.” Id. 19 at 2, 6. 20 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 21 jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); 22 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 23 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 24 magistrate judge). Having reviewed Mr. Saif’ullah’s claims, the Court observes that the Eleventh 25 Amendment bars official capacity claims against state officials, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 26 159, 169–70 (1985), and there is no vicarious liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 27 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). As it appears that this case requires a decision that disposes of the 1 magistrate judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge. 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to 3 || the Court’s assignment plan. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 29, 2020 6 7 Unig. WA hu March: VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28