Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-28/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

Plaintiff Jaques Fearence is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 30, 2015, Defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment was granted, and 

this case is now ready to be set for jury trial on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against Defendant 

Hopkins and failure to protect against Defendants Beckett, Davis and Duffy. 

Plaintiff declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on May 30, 2008 (ECF No. 6), and Defendants

declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on July 15, 2013. (ECF No. 52.) 

Now that the case is ready to be set for trial, the parties are advised of the following important 

information about scheduling and trailing cases before the undersigned:1

 

1 Withholding consent or declining jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge for all purposes will have no effect on the merits of a 

party’s case or have any adverse substantive consequences. 

JAQUES FEARENCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. HOPKINS, et. al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-00615-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING CONSENT TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

SEND CONSENT FORMS 

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 104 Filed 10/01/15 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

District Court Judges of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now have the 

heaviest caseload in the nation. As a result, each District Judge schedules multiple trials to begin on 

each available trial date. Civil cases will trail and begin as soon as a courtroom is cleared. The law 

requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. A civil trial 

set to begin while a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial.

The Court cannot give advance notice of which cases will trail or for how long because the 

Court does not know which cases actually will go to trial or precisely how long each will last. Once 

your trial date arrives, counsel, parties and witnesses must remain on 24-hour-stand-by until a court 

opens. Since continuance to a date certain will simply postpone, but not solve, the problem, 

continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a 

specific and stated finding of good cause. The Court will use its best efforts to mitigate the effect of 

the foregoing and to resolve all cases in a timely manner.

One alternative is for the parties to consent to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all 

proceedings, including trial and 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. The Eastern District Magistrate Judges, all 

experienced former trial lawyers, use the same jury pool and same court facilities as United States 

District Court Judges. Since Magistrate Judges do not conduct felony trials, they have greater 

flexibility and schedule firm trial dates. Judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is 

appealable directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. (While there are 

scheduling benefits to consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, substantive rulings and decisions 

will not be affected by whether a party chooses to consent or not.)

As another response to its large caseload, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of 

California is assigning cases, whenever possible, to Article III District Court Judges from around the 

nation 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.

///

///

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 104 Filed 10/01/15 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’s Office shall send to the parties consent/decline forms; 

2. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, the parties may return 

the consent form to the Court; and

3. After the twenty (20) day deadline, if both parties have not consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction the matter will be set for jury trial before the undersigned. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 104 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 3