Burnett v. Meyst et al

Filing 24

ORDER Directing Defendants To Consent To Or Decline United States Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Within Fifteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/24/2015.(Filing Defendants' Consent/Decline Deadline: 5/13/2015) (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTER BURNETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. MEYST, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 This action is proceeding against Defendants B. Carr, B. Davi. Henry, J. Meyst, and Rice for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 21 22 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO CONSENT TO OR DECLINE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 20 Case No.: 1:12-cv-01694-SAB (PC) Plaintiff Ester Burnett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 10.) 23 24 1 25 26 27 28 In the complaint, Plaintiff improperly joined several separate and distinct claims against multiple defendants. Plaintiff was directed to choose which claim he wished to proceed with in the instant action. (ECF No. 13.) On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff elected to proceed on the excessive force claim as set forth above. Thereafter, on February 18, 2014, the Court provided Plaintiff with the necessary service of process documents, and in that order the Court inadvertently dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining claims and defendants from the action for failure to state a claim, instead of dismissal for improper joinder. (ECF No. 15.) Nonetheless, such error is not prejudicial as the Court’s screening order advised Plaintiff that all unrelated claims were subject to dismissal, and the unrelated claims were not dismissed, with prejudice, and nothing has precluded Plaintiff from re-filing those claims in a new action, if so desired. 1 1 On May 7, 2014, Defendants Meyst, Henry, Rice, Carr, and Davi filed an answer to the 2 complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On May 20, 2014, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order, 3 setting the dispositive motion deadline of March 30, 2015. (ECF No. 19.) To date, no dispositive 4 motions have been filed, and this case is now ready to proceed to trial. 5 The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Judge 6 caseload in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other 7 civil cases in a timely manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and 8 expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin 9 upon the same date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins when 10 the case is heard before a United States District Judge. The law requires the Court give any criminal 11 case priority over civil trials and other matters, and the Court must proceed with criminal trials even if 12 a civil trial is older or was set earlier. Continuances of civil trials under these circumstances will no 13 longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. If multiple trials are 14 scheduled to begin on the same day, this civil trial will trail day to day or week to week until 15 completion of any criminal case or older civil case. 16 The parties are advised of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all 17 proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct trials, including 18 entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 19 and Local Rule 305. The Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to provide Defendants with the 20 Court’s standard form to consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Within ten days of this 21 order’s date of service, Defendants shall either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by 22 filling out the requisite forms and returning them to the Court. Defendants should take note of the 23 Court’s expedited trial setting procedures set forth in Court’s September 4, 2014, when making their 24 determination. 25 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send to Defendants Meyst, Henry, Rice, Carr, 27 and Davi a copy of the consent/decline form and the instructions for consent to Magistrate Judge 28 jurisdiction; and 2 2. 1 2 Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants Meyst, Henry, Rice, Carr, and Davi shall complete and return the Consent or Request for Reassignment form. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 6 April 24, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?