Dumas v. Bangi et al

Filing 25

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 7/26/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DAVID DUMAS,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

Case No. 1:12-cv-01355-LJO-JLT (PC)
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING
IMPACTED TRIAL CALENDAR AND
AVAILABILITY OF CONSENT TO U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

E. BANGI, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

_____________________________________/
This matter is currently set before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, and Plaintiff
has declined to consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. The parties are hereby notified of
the following regarding Judge O’Neill’s impacted trial calendar and its potential effect on their
future trial date.
Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and
this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Judge
O’Neill must adhere to strict scheduling to best manage his burdensome caseload approaching
2,000 cases.
Civil trials set before Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to
suspension mid-trial to accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later
date if Judge O'Neill is unavailable on the original date set for trial. If a trial trails, it may proceed
with little advance notice, and the parties and counsel may be expected to proceed to trial with less

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

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

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

This Court

7 recognizes that Plaintiff elected to decline the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. However, given the
8 gravity of Judge O’Neill’s inability to commit to trials, the parties are encouraged to reconsider
9 Magistrate Judge consent.
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

13

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 26, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2