Decarvalho v. Telford et al

Filing 14

Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler: ORDER entered. The Clerk shall issue summons as to the identified defendants only. Although the use of fictitious names to identify defendants is not favored, situations may arise where the identity of an allege d defendant cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint. See Martnez-Rivera v. Ramos, 498 F.3d 3, 8 (1st Cir. 2007). If, through discovery, the plaintiff discovers the true name of any or all of the Doe defendants, he should act promptly to amend the complaint to substitute the correct parties and to dismiss any baseless claims. Id. at 8 n.5. The Clerk shall send the summonses, a copy of the amended complaint, consent package and this Order to the plaintiff, who must thereafter serve the defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The plaintiff may elect to have service made by the United States Marshal Service. Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Orderto complete service. The Clerk entere d Decarvalho's proposed amended complaint on the docket as plaintiff's amended complaint. The Clerk sent a consent package and a copy of this order to plaintiff at the address listed on the docket by first class mail on 11/15/2017. (Attachments: # 1 consent package)(PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY COURTHOUSE
1 COURTHOUSE WAY, SUITE 2300
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210

FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSENT OR REFUSAL
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION
•
•
•
•
•

Procedures and Other Information
Examples of Consent and Refusal
Blank Forms for Consent or Refusal
General Order 09-3
General Order 10-01

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
PROCEDURES AND OTHER INFORMATION
FOR COMPLETING THE FORM FOR
CONSENT OR REFUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION
(updated 07/16/2010)
I.

AUTHORITY
The Court has entered a General Order (10-1), dated February 2, 2010, amending the General
Order (09-3) of March 3, 2009, authorizing the assignment of civil cases to the Magistrate
Judges sitting in Boston. Those Orders may be found on the Court’s web page at
www.mad.uscourts.gov.

II.

PROCESS
For counsel and non-prisoner pro se litigants:
As the party initiating the civil action, you are responsible for serving the Court’s General
Orders of March 3, 2009 and February 2, 2010 and the consent/refusal form on all opposing
parties. You are also responsible for contacting these attorneys or parties to inquire as to
their consent or refusal to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.
While consent to the assignment of the case to the Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary, and
no adverse substantive consequences of any kind will redound to an attorney or party
refusing to consent, submission of the executed form, memorializing consent or refusal to
consent to final assignment to the Magistrate Judge, is mandatory.
The document does not need to have a handwritten signature from each attorney or party.
If the consent is unanimous you may enter an electronic signature on the consent form for
each attorney or party in this style: ‘/s/ John Smith’ (see the Court’s CM/ECF Administrative
Procedures for further information on electronic signatures). You may use multiple sheets
if additional space is needed. The consent form is also available on the Court’s web page.
An example of a completed form is attached to these procedures.
Should any party not consent, you should electronically file the form, after completing just
the bottom part of the form.
NOTE: The Court is not to be made aware of which party or parties did
not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction.
Only one consent/refusal form should be filed for the case by counsel and
non-prisoner pro se litigants.
The consent or refusal is to be filed electronically in the Court’s CM/ECF system, using one
of these selections, found under the ‘Other Documents’ menu: ‘Consent to Jurisdiction by
US Magistrate Judge,’ or ‘Refusal of Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate
Judge.’

Non-prisoner pro se litigants who do not have access to the Court’s electronic filing system
are to file the completed consent or refusal with the Clerk’s Office on paper.
For incarcerated pro se litigants and counsel in those cases:
The packet of materials regarding Consent or Refusal to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction will
be issued by the Clerk’s Office with the appropriate summons or service order. It will be the
responsibility of the pro se litigant to serve this notice along with the Summons and
Complaint or Notice of Removal.
The Clerk’s Office will include this notice and accompanying documents with any Service
Order entered in 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2254 actions filed by pro se petitioners.
While consent to the assignment of the case to the Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary, and
no adverse substantive consequences of any kind will redound to an attorney or party
refusing to consent, submission of the executed form, memorializing consent or refusal to
consent to final assignment to the Magistrate Judge, is mandatory.
Prisoner pro se litigants and counsel for opposing parties do not need to confer, but shall file
separate documents, on paper and clearly marked “DO NOT SCAN” directly with the
Clerk’s Office indicating their consent or refusal to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. The
Clerk’s Office will gather the information, and make the appropriate docket entry, based on
the documents filed. The original documents relating to consent or refusal filed by any party
in a litigation involving an incarcerated pro se litigant will not be attached to the electronic
(CM/ECF) docket, but stored in the paper case file.
III.

CONSENT AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Should all parties consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, the case will continue before
the Magistrate Judge as any other civil case, including bench or jury trial, and the entry of
final judgment, with direct review by the First Circuit Court of Appeals if any appeal is filed.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

IV.

REFUSAL OF CONSENT AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Should any party not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, or should the parties fail
to submit the document at all, the courtroom deputy clerk will transmit the case file to the
Clerk to have the case randomly assigned to a District Judge of this Court. If the District
Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the
matter will be transmitted to the previously assigned Magistrate Judge.

V.

ADDITIONAL PARTIES
Counsel or pro se parties filing a pleading that adds additional parties to the civil action are
responsible for serving the General Order and the consent form with that pleading, and then
filing the consent form, except for pro se prisoner litigants, who shall file the instructions
above.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ABC TRUCKING COMPANY
Plaintiff
v.

Civil Action No.

08-10356

MARY ALICE JONES
Defendant
NOTICE

EXAMPLE

This case has been assigned to M agistrate Judge ___________________ for all purposes. Please read the
attached General Order for further information regarding this assignment. Plaintiff, or defendant if the case is initiated
by a Notice of Removal, is responsible for submitting this form to the Court advising that all parties consent to the
Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, or indicating that the consent is not unanimous. One document is to be filed.
W hile consent to the assignment of the case to the Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary, and no adverse
substantive consequences of any kind will redound to an attorney or party refusing consent, submission of this executed
form, memorializing consent or refusal to the final assignment to the Magistrate Judge is mandatory. This document is
to be electronically filed with the Court within thirty days after the date of service on the last party.
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
(To Be Completed Only If All Parties Consent)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned
pro se party or counsel of record consent to have the above named M agistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in
this case, including bench or jury trial, and order the entry of final judgment, with direct review by the First Circuit Court
of Appeals if any appeal is filed.

of

Party Represented

Signature

Date

ABC Trucking Company

/s/ Phyllis Q. Harrison

1/15/08

Mary Alice Jones

/s/ George S. Britt

1/16/08

(If additional space is needed, additional forms may be attached)

CONSENT
- - OR - -

REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
(To Be Completed If Any Party Declines to Consent - Please DO NOT Identify the Party)
In accordance with General Order 07-4 , dated December 4, 2007, and as modified by General Order 09-3
(dated M arch 3, 2009) and General Order 10-1 (dated February 2, 2010) the parties advise the Court that at least one
party does not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction.
The case will be randomly assigned to a U.S. District Judge for further proceedings. If you elect to have the
case proceed before a U.S. District Judge, the above named Magistrate Judge shall continue to be assigned to this case
to hear matters referred by the District Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Dated:

____________________________

___________________________________________
Plaintiff or Removing Party
(through counsel, if appropriate)

BBO #
Address:

___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ABC TRUCKING COMPANY
Plaintiff
v.

Civil Action No.

08-10356

MARY ALICE JONES
Defendant
NOTICE

EXAMPLE

This case has been assigned to M agistrate Judge ___________________ for all purposes. Please read the
attached General Order for further information regarding this assignment. Plaintiff, or defendant if the case is initiated
by a Notice of Removal, is responsible for submitting this form to the Court advising that all parties consent to the
Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, or indicating that the consent is not unanimous. One document is to be filed.
W hile consent to the assignment of the case to the Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary, and no adverse
substantive consequences of any kind will redound to an attorney or party refusing consent, submission of this executed
form, memorializing consent or refusal to the final assignment to the Magistrate Judge is mandatory. This document is
to be electronically filed with the Court within thirty days after the date of service on the last party.
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
(To Be Completed Only If All Parties Consent)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned
pro se party or counsel of record consent to have the above named M agistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in
this case, including bench or jury trial, and order the entry of final judgment, with direct review by the First Circuit Court
of Appeals if any appeal is filed.

of

Party Represented

Signature

Date

(If additional space is needed, additional forms may be attached)

REFUSAL
- - OR - -

REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
(To Be Completed If Any Party Declines to Consent - Please DO NOT Identify the Party)
In accordance with General Order 07-4 , dated December 4, 2007, and as modified by General Order 09-3
(dated M arch 3, 2009) and General Order 10-1 (dated February 2, 2010) the parties advise the Court that at least one
party does not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction.
The case will be randomly assigned to a U.S. District Judge for further proceedings. If you elect to have the
case proceed before a U.S. District Judge, the above named Magistrate Judge shall continue to be assigned to this case
to hear matters referred by the District Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Dated:

1/15/08

/s/ Phyllis Q. Harrison
Plaintiff or Removing Party
(through counsel, if appropriate)
BBO #
Address:

123456
9004 Main Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Plaintiff
v.

Civil Action No.

Defendant
NOTICE TO PARTIES IN PRO SE PRISONER LITIGATION CASES
DO NOT SCAN
This case has been assigned to M agistrate Judge ___________________ for all purposes. Please read the
attached General Order for further information regarding this assignment. Each party is responsible for submitting this
form to the Court advising that all parties consent to (or refuse) the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. Each party is to file
their consent or refusal on paper, with the Clerk’s Office clearly marked as DO NOT SCAN.
W hile consent to the assignment of the case to the Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary, and no adverse
substantive consequences of any kind will redound to an attorney or party refusing consent, submission of this executed
form, memorializing consent or refusal to the final assignment to the Magistrate Judge is mandatory. This document is
to be filed on paper with the Clerk’s Office within thirty days after the date of service on the last party.
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned
pro se party or counsel of record consents to have the above named M agistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings
in this case, including bench or jury trial, and order the entry of final judgment, with direct review by the First Circuit
Court of Appeals if any appeal is filed.
Party Represented

Signature

Date

(If additional space is needed, additional forms may be attached)
- - OR - REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
(To Be Completed If the Party Declines to Consent)
In accordance with General Order 07-4 , dated December 4, 2007, and as modified by General Order 09-3
(dated M arch 3, 2009) and General Order 10-1 (dated February 2, 2010) the parties advise the Court that at least one
party does not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction.
The case will be randomly assigned to a U.S. District Judge for further proceedings. If you elect to have the
case proceed before a U.S. District Judge, the above named Magistrate Judge shall continue to be assigned to this case
to hear matters referred by the District Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Dated:

____________________________

___________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________
Printed Name

BBO #
Address:

___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Plaintiff
v.

Civil Action No.

Defendant
NOTICE
This case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge _________________________ for all purposes. Please read
the attached General Order for further information regarding this assignment. Plaintiff, or defendant if the case is initiated
by a Notice of Removal, is responsible for submitting this form to the Court advising that all parties consent to the
Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, or indicating that the consent is not unanimous. One document is to be filed.
While consent to the assignment of the case to the Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary, and no adverse
substantive consequences of any kind will redound to an attorney or party refusing consent, submission of this executed
form, memorializing consent or refusal to the final assignment to the Magistrate Judge is mandatory. This document is
to be electronically filed with the Court within thirty days after the date of service on the last party.
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(To Be Completed Only If All Parties Consent)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned
pro se party or counsel of record consent to have the above named Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in
this case, including bench or jury trial, and order the entry of final judgment, with direct review by the First Circuit Court
of Appeals if any appeal is filed.
Party Represented

Signature

Date

(If additional space is needed, additional forms may be attached)
- - OR - REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(To Be Completed If Any Party Declines to Consent - Please DO NOT Identify the Party)
In accordance with General Order 07-4 , dated December 4, 2007, and as modified by General Order 09-3
(dated March 3, 2009) and General Order 10-1 (dated February 2, 2010) the parties advise the Court that at least one
party does not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction.
The case will be randomly assigned to a U.S. District Judge for further proceedings. If you elect to have the
case proceed before a U.S. District Judge, the above named Magistrate Judge shall continue to be assigned to this case
to hear matters referred by the District Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Dated: ____________________________

BBO #
Address:

___________________________________________
Plaintiff or Removing Party
(through counsel, if appropriate)
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC NOTICE
REGARDING GENERAL ORDER 09-3
Amending General Order 07-4
Pilot Program for Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts established a two year pilot
program beginning on January 1, 2008, to have a limited number of civil cases initially randomly
assigned to a magistrate judge, rather than a district judge. After considering the operation of the
program during the first year, the Court has approved some minor procedural changes to modify the
processing of cases filed by pro se litigants, especially those in custody. The attached General Order
incorporates those changes.

March 27, 2009

Sarah Allison Thornton
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GENERAL ORDER - 09-3
March 3, 2009
Amends General Order 07-4 adopted December 4, 2007
Pilot Program for Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges
In order to increase the utilization of the Magistrate Judges and increase the availability
of civil trials the Court, on December 4, 2007 by General Order 07-4, approved a pilot program
to randomly assign, at the time of filing, a limited number of civil cases directly to the
Magistrate Judges sitting in Boston. This new process is modeled after a successful program
implemented in Springfield. After further review of the program, the Court has adopted this
amended General Order. This pilot project will continue for two years from January 1, 2008,
absent further Order of the Court.
It is hereby ORDERED that, effective January 1, 2008 and as amended effective March
3, 2009, the automated case assignment system for civil cases will be modified so that one out of
twelve civil cases will be randomly assigned to one of the Magistrate Judges sitting in Boston.
Exceptions to this program will be bankruptcy appeals, cases seeking an immediate Temporary
Restraining Order and cases filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Clerk shall provide this Order and a form for designating the parties’ consent or
refusal to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction to counsel, or to a party appearing pro se, upon the
filing of a new civil action. Except in the case of incarcerated pro se plaintiffs, it will be the
responsibility of that attorney or pro se litigant to serve this notice along with the Summons and
Complaint or Notice of Removal. That person will also be responsible for obtaining the other
parties’ decisions concerning proceeding before the Magistrate Judge and for filing the document
as soon as practicable, but in all cases within thirty days after the date of service on the last
party. The document shall indicate either unanimous consent to final referral of the case to the
Magistrate Judge for all purposes including jury or non-jury trial, or that consent to the referral
to the Magistrate Judge has been declined. In the case of incarcerated pro se plaintiffs, the Order
and form shall be included with the other documents sent to the parties by the Clerk’s Office,
and shall provide that each party shall individually return their form evidencing consent or
declination directly to the Clerk’s Office. In all cases, in the absence of unanimous consent to
the referral to the Magistrate Judge, the case will be randomly re-drawn to a District Judge. The
previously assigned Magistrate Judge shall continue to be assigned to the case to hear matters
referred by the District Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
While consent to the assignment of the case to the Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary,
and no adverse substantive consequences of any kind will redound to an attorney or party
refusing to consent, submission of the executed form, memorializing consent or refusal to
consent to final assignment to the Magistrate Judge, is mandatory.

Until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction
or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the
Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for all pretrial
non-dispositive matters other than the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference.

Mark L. Wolf
Mark L. Wolf
Chief Judge

Joseph L. Tauro
Joseph L. Tauro
United States District Judge

Rya W. Zobel
Rya W. Zobel
United States District Judge

William G. Young
William G. Young
United States District Judge

Douglas P. Woodlock
Douglas P. Woodlock
United States District Judge

Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge

Richard G. Stearns
Richard G. Stearns
United States District Judge

Reginald C. Lindsay
Reginald C. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Patti B. Saris
Patti B. Saris
United States District Judge

Nancy Gertner
Nancy Gertner
United States District Judge

Michael A. Ponsor
Michael A Ponsor
United States District Judge

George A. O’Toole
George A. O’Toole
United States District Judge

F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Edward F. Harrington
Edward F. Harrington
Senior United States District Judge

Morris E. Lasker
Morris E. Lasker
Senior United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GENERAL ORDER - 10-01
February 2, 2010

Amends General Order 09-3 adopted March 3, 2009
Pilot Program for Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges

In order to increase the utilization of the Magistrate Judges and increase the availability of
civil trials the Court, on December 4, 2007 by General Order 07-4, approved a pilot program to
randomly assign, at the time of filing, a limited number of civil cases directly to the Magistrate
Judges sitting in Boston. This new process was modeled after a successful program implemented
in Springfield. After further review of the program, the Court adopted amended General Order 09-3
and continued the program for two years from January 1, 2008, absent further Order of the Court.
Upon further consideration by the Court, it is determined that the pilot program has been
successful and should become permanent. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, effective
January 1, 2010, nunc pro tunc, the automated case assignment system for civil cases is authorized
as a permanent program and will continue until further Order of the Court.

1

Mark L. Wolf
Mark L. Wolf
Chief Judge

Joseph L. Tauro
Joseph L. Tauro
United States District Judge

Rya W. Zobel
Rya W. Zobel
United States District Judge

William G. Young
William G. Young
United States District Judge

Douglas P. Woodlock
Douglas P. Woodlock
United States District Judge

Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge

Richard G. Stearns
Richard G. Stearns
United States District Judge

Patti B. Saris
Patti B. Saris
United States District Judge

Nancy Gertner
Nancy Gertner
United States District Judge

Michael A Ponsor
Michael A Ponsor
United States District Judge

George A. O’Toole
George A. O’Toole
United States District Judge

F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Edward F. Harrington____________________
Edward F. Harrington
Senior United States District Judge

2