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 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

ANNA R. WRIGHT 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Arizona State Bar No. 029708 

United States Courthouse 

405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800 

Tucson, Arizona 85701 

Telephone: 520-620-7300 

Email: anna.wright@usdoj.gov nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant.

17-mj-00341-N/A-BPV 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S LETTER REQUESTING 

TRANSFER OF THIS MATTER TO 

DISTRICT JUDGE RANER C. COLLINS

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby

responds to the defendant’s January 17, 2019, letter to District Judge Raner C. Collins 

requesting not only that he reassign this matter, but that he reassign it to himself.1

Recognizing that the defendant is not entitled under the relevant statutes to move for 

reassignment, the defendant chose instead to send a letter imploring District Judge Collins 

to “order the proceedings conducted before a district judge (yourself) on your own motion” 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3401(f). For the reasons discussed below, the government respectfully 

 

1 Counsel for the government received a copy of the letter that same day by email. There 

is no indication that the defendant served a copy of his letter upon the magistrate judge

currently assigned to this case.

Case 4:17-mj-00341-N/A-BPV Document 83 Filed 01/24/19 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 

requests that the matter proceed to trial as scheduled in front of the currently assigned 

magistrate judge, Bernardo P. Velasco. 

The defendant justified sending a letter to chambers, rather than filing a motion, 

because “the nature of [his] request does not fall within the parameters of standard motion 

practice allowed by the CM/ECF system.” This acknowledgement reflects the fact that 

there is no legal mechanism for a party to select which judge will hear a particular motion. 

Regardless of the mechanism used to present the defendant’s request to the Court, as he 

acknowledges, the defendant is not entitled to seek relief because he is charged with a petty 

misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. § 3401. 

18 U.S.C. § 3401 sets out the rights and procedures that apply to defendants charged 

with federal misdemeanors. While § 3401 provides that a magistrate judge may preside 

over the trial of a defendant charged with a misdemeanor offense, it also provides that a 

defendant charged with a Class A misdemeanor may opt to proceed in front of a district 

judge. 18 U.S.C. § 3401(a)-(b). A defendant charged with a petty misdemeanor, including 

a defendant charged with Class B misdemeanors as is the case here, does not have this 

option. Id. In fact, under the statute, the only method by which a district judge may preside 

over a petty misdemeanor is on the Court’s own motion or on petition by the government. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3401(f). There is no legal basis on which a defendant charged with a petty 

misdemeanor may move to have his or her case tried by a district judge. Id. As such, the 

defendant in this case is foreclosed from petitioning the Court to reassign this matter to a 

district judge. Accordingly, the Court should deny the defendant’s request. 

Even if the defendant could make his request under the governing federal law, there 

is no basis to reassign this matter to a district judge. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3401(f), a petition 

by the government should “note the novelty, importance, or complexity of the case, or other 

pertinent factors, and be filed in accordance” with 28 C.F.R. § 52.02.2 The regulation 

 

2 In this case, there is no “good cause shown” on which the government could move for 

reassignment to a district judge. 18 U.S.C. § 3401(f). 

Case 4:17-mj-00341-N/A-BPV Document 83 Filed 01/24/19 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 

directs the attorney for the government to consider various factors in evaluating whether a 

trial should be before a district judge. See 28 C.F.R. § 52.02(b)(1). None of the factors 

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3401 or 28 C.F.R. § 52.02 weighs in favor of the defendant’s request. 

In particular, this case does not involve issues that are so novel, important or complex that 

merit reassignment to a district judge. Indeed, Magistrate Judge Velasco just recently 

presided over a trial that raised issues very similar to the case that defendant now seeks to 

reassign. 

For these reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny the 

defendant’s unusual and unfounded request, and allow the trial to proceed as scheduled in 

front of Magistrate Judge Velasco. 

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of January, 2019. 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona 

 /s/ Anna R. Wright & Nathaniel J. Walters

 ANNA R. WRIGHT & 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this 24th day of January, 2019, to: 

All ECF Participants 

Case 4:17-mj-00341-N/A-BPV Document 83 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 3