Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02175/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02175-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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,

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

form.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Hopson,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U. S. Dept. of Justice, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2175-PHX-LOA

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

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

Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed, signed and filed. The

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

Case 2:06-cv-02175-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/27/06 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

- 2 -

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 pro se Plaintiff's Complaint, filed

on September 12, 2006, is titled "Federal Mandamus" but, in reality, it may be a Bivens

action. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (United States Supreme Court held that suit could

be filed against federal officials acting under color of authority for alleged Fourth

Amendment violations). However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against extending

Bivens into new areas or recognizing new rights or claims. Libas Ltd. v. Carillo, 329 F.3d

1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 68-70,

122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 421-23, 108

S.Ct. 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 373-74, 103 S.Ct. 2404,

76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983). 

Plaintiff is hereby advised that the United States Supreme Court has made

clear: federal "judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants"

because requiring trial judges to explain the details of federal procedure or act as the pro se's

counsel "would undermine district judges' [or magistrate judges'] role as impartial

decisionmakers." Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 124 S.Ct 2441, 2446 (2004). Therefore, Plaintiff

is forewarned that it can not unfairly assist Plaintiff in this litigation.

Plaintiff is hereby advised that Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) requires

Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court in writing of any change in address. Absent good

cause shown, the failure to notify the Court or Clerk in writing of a change in address may

result in the dismissal of this action.

Case 2:06-cv-02175-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/27/06 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 -

Plaintiff has filed his Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants

the appropriate consent form at the time of service of his Complaint upon the Defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, and each of them, shall either

voluntarily consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge

within twenty (20) days of each Defendant’s formal appearance herein.

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/.

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 27th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02175-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 3