Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01585/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01585-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Phillip Wayne Clark, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sun Health Boswell; Arizona State Board

of Nursing and Board Members; Rachel

Torrez. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1585-PHX-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

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

December 1, 2007, civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a United States district

judge or to a United States magistrate judge. This matter has been assigned to the

undersigned United States 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 Title 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

Case 2:08-cv-01585-SRB Document 3 Filed 09/02/08 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

1

The consent/election form was or will be provided to Plaintiff by the Clerk. One may

also 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. Consent/election forms are not to be e-filed. Consent/election forms

are to be filed in paper form with the Clerk's Office. ECF Policies and Procedure Manual,

II, ¶ M at p.19.

- 2 -

Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge,1 must be completed, signed and filed. The

party filing the case or removing it to this District 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 no later than 20 days after entry of appearance or as

otherwise directed by the Court, and shall serve a copy upon all other parties of record in the

case.

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

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

Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2003) (pointing out that

consent is the “touchstone of magistrate judge jurisdiction” under Title 28 U.S.C. §636(c)).

“A party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to

proceed before an Article III judge.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of Am., Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir.

1984) (en banc)). 

A review of the District Court’s docket reflects that the pro se Complaint was

filed on August 27, 2008. Plaintiff shall have until and including Monday, September 15,

2008 within which to make his selection to either voluntarily consent to magistrate-judge

jurisdiction or elect to have the case assigned to a United States district judge. 

Regardless of whether Plaintiff consents to a magistrate judge or elects to have

his case decided by a district judge, he must understand the role of a federal trial judge. The

United States Supreme Court has made clear that federal “judges have no obligation to act

as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants” because requiring trial judges to explain the details

Case 2:08-cv-01585-SRB Document 3 Filed 09/02/08 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 -

of federal procedure or act as the pro se's counsel “would undermine district [or magistrate]

judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 226-227 (2004).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his written election to either

consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district

judge on or before Monday, September 15, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with these

orders, or any of them, may result in the dismissal of Complaint without prejudice pursuant

to Rule 41, Fed.R.Civ.P., or the Local Rules. 

 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. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01585-SRB Document 3 Filed 09/02/08 Page 3 of 3