Simmons v. Adams et al

Filing 76

NOTICE to Parties Regarding Impacted Trial Calendar and Availability of Consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/26/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.

NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING
IMPACTED TRIAL CALENDAR AND
AVAILABILITY OF CONSENT TO U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

DERAL G. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Case No. 1:10-cv-01259-LJO-SKO PC

_____________________________________/

16
17

This matter is currently set for jury trial before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill on

18 January 22, 2014, and the parties have declined to consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
19 The parties are hereby notified of the following regarding Judge O’Neill’s impacted trial calendar
20 and its potential effect on their trial date.
21

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and

22 this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Judge
23 O’Neill must adhere to strict scheduling to best manage his burdensome caseload approaching
24 2,000 cases.
25

This case is currently third on Judge O’Neill’s trial calendar, and civil trials set before

26 Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension mid-trial to
27 accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Judge O'Neill is
28 unavailable on the original date set for trial. If a trial trails, it may proceed with little advance

1 notice, and the parties and counsel may be expected to proceed to trial with less than 24 hours
2 notice. Moreover, this Court’s Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns
3 civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve as visiting judges. In the
4 absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S. District Judge
5 from outside the Eastern District of California.
6

Case management difficulties, including trial setting and interruption, are avoided if the

7 parties consent to conduct of further proceedings by a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

This Court

8 recognizes that Defendant has filed a decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. However, given the
9 gravity of Judge O'Neill's inability to commit to trials, the parties are encouraged to reconsider
10 Magistrate Judge consent.1
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

15

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 26, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17

DEAC_Signature-END:

66h44d

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff filed a decline to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on September 21, 2010, and he has not yet filed his
response to the recently issued scheduling order, in which the parties were directed to either consent to or decline U.S.
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

2