Brown v. Gore et al

Filing 170

ORDER Denying as Moot 116 Plaintiff's Motion for Trial Before District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 2/13/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ROBERT MARK BROWN II,
Inmate Booking No. 11181259,

Civil
No.
Plaintiff,

12-CV-1938-GPC (BGS)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL
BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
WILLIAM D. GORE; FRANK C.
CLAMSER; DEPUTY #1; DEPUTY
VILLAREALL; DEPUTY #3; DEPUTY
WEBBER; DEPUTY #5,

[ECF No. 116.]

Defendant.
On October 11, 2013, Plaintiff Robert Mark Brown II, a prisoner proceeding pro se and In
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action, filed a Motion for Trial Before District Judge.
[ECF Nos. 116.] In the motion, Plaintiff claims he mistakenly consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction during the preparation of his complaint on the advice of fellow inmates. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff notes Defendants have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all purposes and
contends erroneously that this case is proceeding under Magistrate Judge Skomal without the
required consent of all parties. Id. Plaintiff’s assertion is incorrect.
Civil Local Rule 72.1(b) authorizes the magistrate judge to “hear and determine any pretrial
motions, including discovery motions, other than dispositive motions” as provided under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A). See Civ. L.R. 72.1(b). Similarly, this Court’s Local Civil Rule 26.1 refers all
discovery matters, including motions to compel and motions to quash subpoenas, as non-dispositive
1

1

matters for hearing and final disposition. See Civ. L.R. 26.1(e); In re Application of Chevron Corp.

2

v. E-Tech, International, 2010 WL 3584520, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2010).

3

The various pretrial and discovery motions decided to date by Magistrate Judge Skomal in

4

this matter were referred under the Local Rules identified above. Furthermore, Judge Skomal does

5

not have jurisdiction over this matter for all purposes. The district judge assigned to this case is the

6

Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel. A pretrial conference and trial date will be set in front of Judge Curiel

7

in due course with the issuance of a scheduling order. See Civ. L.R. 16.1 (d)-(e) (authorizing the

8

judicial officer to set pretrial deadlines including a trial date); Civ. L.R. 72.3(e) (authorizing the

9

magistrate judge to “conduct all necessary hearings” even when parties withhold their consent to

10

magistrate judge jurisdiction for all purposes). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial before

11

District Judge is DENIED AS MOOT.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 13, 2014

14
15
16

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

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