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)

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