ORDER TO VACATE HEARING AND TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (Doc. 15)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
On May 17, 2013, defendants filed their F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's original complaint and set a June 18, 2013 hearing. On June 4, 2013, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint ("FAC") as matter of course under F.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). On June 5, 2013, the parties filed their stipulation to request an extended briefing schedule for defendants' anticipated F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the FAC.
Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill must adhere to strict scheduling to best manage his burdensome caseload approaching 2, 000 cases. The parties' proposed briefing schedule contemplates an extension of opposition and reply dates beyond those contemplated by Local Rule 230(g) and fails to demonstrate good cause for such extended dates. Setting extended opposition and reply dates as requested by the parties would jeopardize Judge O'Neill's case management and would necessitate devotion of inordinate time and resources to this action at the expense of other actions and litigants.
The parties' proposed briefing schedule can be accomplished only if the parties consent to the conduct of all further proceedings by one of the Court's U.S. Magistrate Judges. The Magistrate Judges' availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of Judge O'Neill, who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. If the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the reassigned magistrate judge can set briefing dates to accommodate the parties.
Moreover, civil trials set before Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension mid-trial to accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Judge O'Neill is unavailable on the original date set for trial. If a trial trails, it may proceed with little advance notice, and the parties and counsel may be expected to proceed to trial with less than 24 hours notice. Also, this Court's Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve as visiting judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S. District Judge from outside the Eastern District of California. Case management difficulties, including briefing schedules, trial setting and interruption, are avoided if the parties consent to conduct of further proceedings by a Magistrate Judge.
The parties are required to consider, and if necessary, to reconsider consent to one of the Court's Magistrate Judges. A Magistrate Judge consent form is available on this Court's website. The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact United States Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to address this Court's inability to accommodate the parties and this action. For further information regarding handling of this action, the parties may contact staff attorney Gary Green at (559) 499-5683 or email him at email@example.com.
On the basis of good cause, this Court:
1. VACATES the June 18, 2013 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss in that the FAC renders moot the motion to dismiss plaintiff's original complaint;
2. DIRECTS the clerk to term the motion to dismiss the original complaint (doc. 10);
3. ORDERS defendants, no later than June 18, 2013, to file and serve papers to respond to the FAC and otherwise DENIES without prejudice the motion to dismiss opposition and reply dates proposed by the parties; and
4. SETS a scheduling conference for August 14, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin in Department 10 (GSA).
This Court will take no further action on the motion to dismiss the ...