Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CARLOS DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5488-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 11, 2006

TRIAL AND SETTING TRIAL FOR

DECEMBER 5, 2006

ORDER REGARDING CONSENT AND

FURTHER BRIEFING

Plaintiff John Carlos Duarte (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights

by federal actors. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed January 8,

2004, against defendants Puentes and Duffle (“Defendants”) on Plaintiff’s equal protection

claim. Based on the parties’ stipulation, trial is currently set for October 11, 2006.

The court finds it necessary to move the trial date of this action because of the court’s

trial schedule. As such, the October 11, 2006 trial date is vacated, and the court resets trial in

this matter for December 5, 2006.

The court also notes that on September 11, 2006, the court had requested further briefing

on the availability of a Bivens cause of action against defendants working at a private prison. 

See Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287 (4 Cir. 2006), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 126 S.Ct. 2333 (2006), th

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 62 Filed 09/26/06 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

 By requesting the parties inform the court whether they are willing to consent to

1

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction the court is not indicating that it does not wish to try this matter. 

The court simply has a large number of cases set for trial, and normally a Magistrate Judge is

able to conduct trials sooner and with a more definite trial date than the undersigned.

2

and Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, 422 F.3d 1090 (10 Cir. 2005), vacated in part and aff'd th

in part, 449 F.3d 1097 (10 Cir. 2006) (en banc ). This briefing was to be filed by September th

22, 2006. Defendants have failed to respond to the court’s September 11, 2006 order. As such,

the court proceeds under the assumption that it is Defendants’ contention that a Bivens action is

available against these Defendants under the facts of this case and there is no state remedy

available to Plaintiff for the acts alleged in the complaint. 

Finally, the court requests that the parties fill out and return the enclosed forms,

indicating whether they are willing to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Based

on the court’s trial schedule, the Magistrate Judge may be able conduct trial earlier than the

undersigned.1

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The trial currently set for October 11, 2006, is VACATED and is RESET

for December 5, 2006;

2. The parties are DIRECTED to indicate whether they are willing to consent

to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by October 13, 2006;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send the parties the court’s

standard form for consenting or declining to consent to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 62 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2