Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01024/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01024-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The consent/election form may be obtained directly from the Clerk of the Court or

by accessing the District of Arizona’s web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. To find the

consent/election form on the District’s web site, click on “Local Rules” at the top of the page,

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas A. Callan,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner;

Treasury, Department of United States Tax

Court,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1024-PHX-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

 Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), LRCiv, Rules of Practice, effective December

1, 2005, all civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district judge or to a U.S.

magistrate judge. This matter has been assigned to the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge.

 As a result of the aforesaid Local Rule and assignment, if all parties consent

in writing, the case will remain with the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

636(c)(1) for all purposes, including trial and final entry of judgment. If any party chooses

the district judge option, the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. district judge. To

either consent to the assigned magistrate judge or to elect to have the case heard before a

U.S. district judge, the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To Exercise Of

Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed and signed. The party

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 16 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

then click on “Forms” on the left side of the page and then click on and print the appropriate

form.

- 2 -

filing the case or removing it to this Court is responsible for serving all parties with the

consent forms. Each party must file a completed consent form and certificate of service with

the Clerk of the Court not later than 20 days after entry of appearance, and must serve a copy

by mail or hand delivery upon all parties of record in the case.

Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction without

adverse consequences. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2); Rule 73(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Anderson v.

Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2003) (pointing out that consent is

the "touchstone of magistrate [judge] jurisdiction" under 28 U.S.C. §636(c).

A review of the Court’s file indicates that the Defendants have filed a Motion

to Dismiss on October 5, 2006 (docket #15). The Complaint was filed on April 12, 2006

(docket #1). Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on April 12, 2006 (docket

#7) and again on June 13, 2006 (docke #12).

 It is unknown if a copy of the appropriate consent form, mailed to Plaintiff by

the Clerk on April 12, 2006 (docket #2), was served with the Complaint and Summons upon

the Defendants per the written instructions from the Clerk.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Internal Revenue Service Commissioner,

Department of Treasury and United States Tax Court (hereinafter referred to as "United

States Defendants") shall execute and file within 20 days of the date of this Order either a

written consent to the exercise of authority by the magistrate judge or a written election to

have the case reassigned to a United States district judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2005. The District’s Rules of Practice

may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 16 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro

se does not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the rules of the court in which he

litigates." Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED this 11th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 16 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 3