Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00205-60/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

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

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

1:09-cv-00205-LJO-JLT (PC)

NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING

IMPACTED TRIAL CALENDAR AND

AVAILABILITY OF CONSENT TO U.S. 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION; 

ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT 

RE PREPAREDENESS FOR TRIAL

In this action, Plaintiff claims Defendants Baer, Valdez, Buenos, Lee, Ponce, and Purvis 

used excessive force on him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Since both sides indicated 

that a settlement conference may be beneficial, one was scheduled and conducted on August 4, 

2015. However, it was unsuccessful. (See Doc. 278.) Thus, it is time to set this matter for trial. 

The parties are hereby notified of the following regarding Judge O’Neill’s impacted trial calendar

and its potential effect on the trial date in this action.

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation which 

makes this Court unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. 

Judge O’Neill must adhere to strict scheduling to best manage his burdensome caseload which 

variously approaches 2,000 cases.

This case is currently in line to be placed on Judge O’Neill’s trial calendar since 

Defendants did not consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Civil trials set before Judge 

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 279 Filed 08/11/15 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

2

O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension mid-trial to accommodate 

criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Judge O'Neill is unavailable on 

the original date set for trial. If a trial trails, it may proceed with little advance notice and the 

parties and counsel may be expected to proceed to trial with less than 24-hours’ notice. Moreover, 

this Court’s Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. 

District Judges throughout the nation who serve as visiting judges as they become available. In 

the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S. District 

Judge from outside the Eastern District of California. 

Case management difficulties, including trial setting and interruption, are avoided if the 

parties consent to conduct of further proceedings by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. While Plaintiff 

consented to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (Doc. 5) Defendants did not (Doc. 18). Though 

Defendants are entitled to maintain this position and there would be no ramifications for doing so, 

given Judge O’Neill’s inability to commit time to civil trials and the costs and inconvenience this 

poses, Defendants are urged to reconsider Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

On the other hand, given the case posture, the parties must notify the Court of readiness for 

trial and of available dates for trial.1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

(1) within 10 days of the date of service of this order, Defendants SHALL file a 

consent/decline form related to whether they will consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction;

(2) the Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to attach a blank copy of the “Order re Consent 

or Request for Reassignment” form to this order for Defendants’ use; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

 

1

For the reasons stated already, there can be no assurance that the trial will proceed on the date proposed.

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 279 Filed 08/11/15 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

(3) within 21 days of the date of service of this order, both sides are to submit status 

reports indicating whether they are ready to conduct the trial, any impediments to setting the trial 

date and dates on which they are available for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 279 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3