From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Parry

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:22-cv-1442-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1442-TLN-KJN PS

11-14-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CURTIS L. PARRY, Defendant.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This action has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman (See ECF No. 6). Because at least one party proceeds without the assistance of counsel, the Local Rules dictate the Magistrate Judge will (1) resolve all non-dispositive matters, and (2) conduct all hearings and issue findings and recommendations on any dispositive matters. See Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Should the parties wish to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including for the entry of final judgment, they may do so using the court's “Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment” form. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). There is no obligation to consent, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b)(1), the judges will not be notified of a party's choice unless all parties consent.

Because a consent designation assists the court in determining how the action will be administratively processed, the parties are instructed to make their election and notify the Clerk of the Court within 60 days of this order.

Given that the assigned district judge in this action has construed defendant Parry's filing as an answer to the complaint and indication defendant intends to proceed without the assistance of counsel (see ECF Nos. 5, 6), the case requires scheduling. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Rule 240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Within 60 days of this order, the parties shall discuss, in person or by telephone, their obligations to transmit mandatory disclosures to the other parties, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. During their meeting, the parties shall discuss whether this case should be stayed and referred to mediation in the court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program.
2. Within 7 days after the parties' discussion on mandatory disclosures, the parties shall file a joint status report with the court, for the entry of a pretrial scheduling order. This report shall address the relevant portions of Local Rule 240(a), and shall be set for a hearing before the undersigned pursuant to the court's civil motion calendar. Judge Newman hears civil motions on Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m.
3. The parties are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See Local Rule 160.
4. Finally, defendant is reminded that while this court liberally construes filings by parties who are not represented by counsel, pro se parties are still required to comply with the Federal Rules, the court's Local Rules, and all orders of the court. Under Local Rule 110, a failure to do so “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court,” including monetary sanctions, the striking of a pleading or motion, or dismissal of the case.


Summaries of

United States v. Parry

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:22-cv-1442-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Parry

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CURTIS L. PARRY, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 14, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-1442-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)