Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00195/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00195-6/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

DARRYL RAY MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

1:20-cv-00195-NONE-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER 

OF CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 31)

Plaintiff has filed a request for relief from the Court’s order of clarification filed on 

October 28, 2021. (Docs. 30, 31.) The order of clarification provides: 

If a party in any civil action designated to the NONE caseload believes that 

circumstances in the case warrant an exception from the terms of this order, that 

party may file a request for relief explaining any extraordinary urgency or need 

based on the party's circumstances and identifying the relief requested.

. . . In evaluating any relief requested, the court will require a significant and 

compelling showing to distinguish one case from all the other civil cases that have 

been waiting for the judicial attention they rightfully deserve but which this court 

simply cannot provide in light of the inadequate resources currently allocated to 

it.

(Doc. 20 at 2, n.1.) 

Plaintiff argues that he has already consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this case 

and in and unrelated case. However, his consent alone is insufficient. All parties must consent in 

for the magistrate judge to conduct “any and all proceedings in a civil action, including 

Case 1:20-cv-00195-JLT-CDB Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 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

2

conducting jury or non-jury trials and to order the entry of final judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; E.D. Cal. R. 301. 

This case is at the screening stage. On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended 

complaint, (Doc. 29), which will be screened in due course. Because no defendants have 

appeared and their consents cannot be obtained at this stage, the Court cannot refer this matter to 

the magistrate judge as requested. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated 

any extraordinary urgency or made a significant and compelling showing that would warrant 

exception from the terms of the order of clarification. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the Court’s order of clarification. (Doc. 31.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00195-JLT-CDB Document 32 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2