Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Masood v. Barr, 19-cv-07623-VKD. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20191206b32 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner Ady Masood, a detainee in immigration custody, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2243, challenging his detention at the Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California. Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Masood named as respondents U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Dir
More

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Ady Masood, a detainee in immigration custody, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2243, challenging his detention at the Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California. Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Masood named as respondents U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director Erik Bonnar, and Yuba County Sheriff-Coroner Wendell Anderson. Id.

On November 21, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause directing the parties to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by December 4, 2019 and setting a briefing schedule. Dkt. No. 5. On December 4, 2019, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California entered an appearance and responded to the request to file a consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction as to Attorney General Barr, Acting Secretary Wolf, and Acting Director Bonnar only. Dkt. No. 7. That filing expressly noted that the U.S. Attorney does not represent Sheriff Anderson. Id. Sheriff Anderson has not appeared and has not filed anything indicating whether he consents to or declines magistrate judge jurisdiction.

Absent the consent of all parties, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter and must refer the case to a district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, it is ordered that this case be reassigned to a district judge. All pending motion hearings and scheduled appearances are hereby vacated and will be reset by the newly assigned judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer