A federal court's "obligation" to hear and decide a case that implicates Constitutional and Civil Rights is "virtually unflagging". Parallel state-court proceedings do not detract from that obligation; Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 US 69 (2013)

Petitioners removed an action to the district court seeking injunctive and declaratory reliefs. Without even a cursory hearing, without any opposition by the defendants, the district court dismissed the action and wrote "the federal action shall be closed".

Furthermore, the Eastern District of California denies Article III standing to petitioners and to a class of individuals, in all actions including federal Civil Rights, via its Local Rule 302(c)(21); All matters including dispositive are referred to Magistrates even when consent is declined in writing.

Whether Local Rule 302 (c) (21) of Eastern District of California conforms with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and conforms with Article III Jurisprudence?

Alternatively, whether the district court has an obligation to hear the case?

Whether Local Rule 302 (c) (21) of Eastern District of California conforms with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and conforms with Article III Jurisprudence?