Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00279/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00279-10/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

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

CAYETANO MELENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HUNT, et al.,

 Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING CONSENT TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO SEND CONSENT FORM TO 

DEFENDANTS

)

)

Plaintiff Cayetano Melendez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 20, 2016, 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 51.) 

This case is now ready to be set for jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hunt for 

excessive force and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and against Defendants 

Cruz and Arreola1for the failure to intercede.

Out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno 

Division of the Eastern District of California now has one of the heaviest District Judge caseload 

in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil 

cases in a timely manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and 

expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. Multiple trials are being set on the Court’s 

 

1

Erroneously sued as Defendant L. “Arriola.”

Case 1:13-cv-00279 Document 52 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 3
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

calendar to begin upon the same date. Parties whose trials are set to begin on the same day as 

other cases may find their own case trailing with little notice before their trial is set to begin. The 

law requires the Court give any criminal case priority over civil trials and other matters, and the 

Court must proceed with criminal trials even if a civil trial is older or was set earlier. If multiple 

trials are scheduled to begin on the same day, a civil trial will trail day to day or week to week 

until completion of any criminal case or older civil case. 

The parties are reminded of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to 

conduct all proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct 

trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 

on December 5, 2014. (ECF No. 31), and Defendants declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on 

November 21, 2014. (ECF No. 30.) Now that this case is ready for a trial setting, the Court will 

direct the Clerk of the Court to provide Defendants with the Court’s standard form to consent to 

or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Within twenty (20) days of this order’s date of service, 

the Defendants shall either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by filling out the 

requisite forms and returning them to the Court. The parties are advised that the same jury pool is 

used by both United States Magistrate Judges and United States Article III District Court Judges. 

Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 

United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 

Finally, for the parties’ information, the Fresno Division whenever possible is utilizing 

United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the country as Visiting Judges. 

Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties 

will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court 

Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California.

The parties are hereby informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected 

by whether a party chooses to consent. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00279 Document 52 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide the Defendants with the forms 

that will allow them to consent or decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction; 

2. Within twenty (20) days from this order’s date of service, the Defendants shall 

notify the Court whether they consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 

by filling out the enclosed forms and returning them to the Court; and

3. Following receipt of the consent/decline form from Defendants, this case will be 

set for trial before either the Magistrate Judge or the undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00279 Document 52 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 3