Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02205/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02205-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert L. Cockrell
Defendant
Bruce F. Stanford
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE F. STANFORD, No. CIV S-09-2205-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ROBERT L. COCKRELL,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the

court is plaintiff’s response to the court’s February 12, 2010, order to show cause. In the

February 2010 order, the court stated:

Upon filing of this action on August 10, 2009, a status/scheduling

conference was set for January 7, 2010. As of December 29, 2009, the

docket reflected that plaintiff had not effected service of process on

defendant and the court sua sponte continued the status/scheduling

conference to February 11, 2010. Plaintiff failed to appear at the

continued hearing or file a status/scheduling conference statement. 

Plaintiff has also failed to effect service of process within 120 days of the

filing of the action as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-02205-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 03/18/10 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

2

In his response, plaintiff states that he believed submission of a form declining Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction and requesting assignment of a District Judge obviated any need to appear before the

Magistrate Judge for the scheduling conference. Plaintiff does not address failure to effect timely

service of process. The court notes, however, that defendant has now been served and filed an

answer to the complaint. 

As to his request for assignment of this matter to a District Judge, plaintiff is

informed that notwithstanding such request, the matter will continue to be referred to a

Magistrate Judge to hear certain matters as outlined in the court’s local rules. In some instances,

the Magistrate Judge may issue an order disposing of a particular matter. In other instances, the

Magistrate Judge may issue findings and recommendations which will be considered de novo by

the District Judge. The assignment of a District Judge does not excuse plaintiff’s obligations

with respect to matters referred to the Magistrate Judge. Given plaintiff’s apparent good-faith

misunderstanding of the role of the Magistrate Judge in cases assigned to a District Judge,

however, the court will discharge the order to show cause and re-set this matter for an initial

status/scheduling conference. Plaintiff is warned that further non-compliance with any order

issued by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge may be cause for dismissal of the action. See

Local Rule 110. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-02205-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 03/18/10 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause issued on February 12, 2010, is discharged;

2. This matter is set for an initial status/scheduling conference on April 22,

2010, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned at 2986 Bechelli Lane, 3rd Floor, Redding,

California; and

3. The parties shall each file separate status/scheduling conference statements

on or before April 15, 2010. 

DATED: March 17, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02205-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3