Mills v. Pfeffer

Full title: DARRYL RAY MILLS, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEFFER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 14, 2021

1:20-cv-00195-NE-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00195-NE-JLT (PC)

12-14-2021

DARRYL RAY MILLS, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEFFER, et al., Defendants.

JENNIFER L. THURSTON CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF CLARIFICATION (DOC. 31)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff has filed a request for relief from the Court's order of clarification filed on October 28, 2021. (Docs. 30, 31.) The order of clarification provides:

If a party in any civil action designated to the NONE caseload believes that circumstances in the case warrant an exception from the terms of this order, that party may file a request for relief explaining any extraordinary urgency or need based on the party's circumstances and identifying the relief requested. . . . In evaluating any relief requested, the court will require a significant and compelling showing to distinguish one case from all the other civil cases that have been waiting for the judicial attention they rightfully deserve but which this court simply cannot provide in light of the inadequate resources currently allocated to it.

(Doc. 20 at 2, n.1.)

Plaintiff argues that he has already consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this case and in and unrelated case. However, his consent alone is insufficient. All parties must consent in for the magistrate judge to conduct “any and all proceedings in a civil action, including conducting jury or non-jury trials and to order the entry of final judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73; E.D. Cal. R. 301.

This case is at the screening stage. On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, (Doc. 29), which will be screened in due course. Because no defendants have appeared and their consents cannot be obtained at this stage, the Court cannot refer this matter to the magistrate judge as requested. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any extraordinary urgency or made a significant and compelling showing that would warrant exception from the terms of the order of clarification. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for relief from the Court's order of clarification. (Doc. 31.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.