Allen v. U.S. Secretary of Defense

Filing 30

ORDER -.....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Alice Allen's Motion for Change of Judge from Frederick R. Buckles to U.S. District Court Judge Carol Jackson (Doc. #28) is DENIED. denying 28 Pro Se Motion Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 7/25/2011. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALICE ALLEN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE,
Defendant.

No. 4:10CV1928 FRB

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is plaintiff Alice
Allen’s Motion for Change of Judge from Frederick R. Buckles to
U.S. District Court Judge Carol Jackson (Doc. #28).

All matters

are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge,
with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff filed this action, pro se, on October 13, 2010.
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08(A) of this Court, the Clerk assigned
this civil action to a judge of this Court by automated random
selection.

Through

such

selection,

the

matter

was

randomly

assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.

On

October 21, 2010, full consent to the exercise of my authority to
preside over the cause was received from all parties pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) (Doc. #4).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; Local Rule

2.08(A); Local Rule 11.01.

Upon conferring with the parties

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, the undersigned entered a Case
Management Order setting forth schedules and deadlines by which the

cause is to proceed.

(See Doc. ##19, 20.)

Upon defendant’s filing

of an Answer to plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and plaintiff’s
Objection thereto, plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to
have this matter transferred from the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge to United States District Judge Carol E. Jackson.
Defendant has not responded to the motion.
“[L]itigants subject to the authority of the district
court do not normally have any say as to the particular judge who
acts for the court.’”

United States v. Williams, 624 F.3d 889,

893-94 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Colon-Munoz, 292
F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2002)).

See also Hvass v. Graven, 257 F.2d

1, 5 (8th Cir. 1958) (noting that “a litigant has no vested right
to have his case tried before any particular judge”).

To permit

parties to engage in judge shopping would deal a serious blow to
the integrity of the court system.

In re Medtronic, Inc. Sprint

Fidelis Leads Prods. Liab. Litig., 601 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1124 (D.
Minn. 2009).
A review of the record shows no impropriety in the
assignment of this action to the undersigned or in the parties’
consent to the exercise of my authority in the matter under 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

Plaintiff makes no assertion of extraordinary

circumstances justifying the vacation of such authority, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 73(b)(3), and a review of the matter shows there to
exist no reason why my impartiality would be questioned in my

-2-

presiding

over

the

action.

Nor

does

there

exist

any

other

circumstances for which I should disqualify myself from presiding
over the matter.

See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b).

Inasmuch as a review of the record shows no reason to
reassign this action to another judge of this Court, and given that
judge shopping is discouraged,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Alice Allen’s Motion
for Change of Judge from Frederick R. Buckles to U.S. District
Court Judge Carol Jackson (Doc. #28) is DENIED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this

25th

day of July, 2011.

-3-