Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01694/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01694-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Ester Burnett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 10.) 

 

1

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. 

ESTER BURNETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. MEYST, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01694-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

CONSENT TO OR DECLINE UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION WITHIN 

FIFTEEN DAYS

Case 1:12-cv-01694-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

On May 7, 2014, Defendants Meyst, Henry, Rice, Carr, and Davi filed an answer to the 

complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On May 20, 2014, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order, 

setting the dispositive motion deadline of March 30, 2015. (ECF No. 19.) To date, no dispositive 

motions have been filed, and this case is now ready to proceed to trial. 

The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Judge 

caseload in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other 

civil cases in a timely manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and 

expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin 

upon the same date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins when 

the case is heard before a United States District Judge. The law requires the Court give any criminal 

case priority over civil trials and other matters, and the Court must proceed with criminal trials even if 

a civil trial is older or was set earlier. Continuances of civil trials under these circumstances will no 

longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. If multiple trials are 

scheduled to begin on the same day, this civil trial will trail day to day or week to week until 

completion of any criminal case or older civil case. 

The parties are advised of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct trials, including 

entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 

and Local Rule 305. The Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to provide Defendants with the 

Court’s standard form to consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Within ten days of this 

order’s date of service, Defendants shall either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by 

filling out the requisite forms and returning them to the Court. Defendants should take note of the 

Court’s expedited trial setting procedures set forth in Court’s September 4, 2014, when making their 

determination. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send to Defendants Meyst, Henry, Rice, Carr, 

and Davi a copy of the consent/decline form and the instructions for consent to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction; and

Case 1:12-cv-01694-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 3
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

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01694-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 3