IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: :
:
DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF SOCIAL : STANDING ORDER
SECURITY APPEALS TO :
MAGISTRATE JUDGES – :
EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM :
In order to maximize the use of available judicial resources within the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding” consistent with Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court previously
established a two-year Pilot Program for direct assignment of Social Security appeals to Magistrate
Judges, effective September 4, 2018. In accordance with the unanimous decision of the Board of
Judges, this Standing Order is issued to extend the Pilot Program and to continue in effect the
direct assignment procedures set forth in the Standing Order of August 21, 2018, as amended
herein, until further Order of the Court. This Standing Order supersedes the Standing Order of
August 21, 2018, which amended the Standing Order regarding Assignment Procedure for Habeas
Corpus and Social Security Cases for United States Magistrates dated May 29, 1990, and
established the Pilot Program. The procedures set forth below shall apply to all appeals from the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to § 405(g) of the Social Security
Act, until the Court orders otherwise:
I. Direct Assignment of Cases to Magistrate Judges
A. All appeals from the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant
to § 405(g) of the Social Security Act (hereinafter “case” or “cases”) will be
assigned to a Magistrate Judge of the Court at the time of filing.
B. After a case is filed and a Magistrate Judge of the Court is assigned, when the fee
is paid or In Forma Pauperis (IFP) status is granted, the Clerk of Court shall docket
in each case the Standing Procedural Order for Cases Seeking Social Security
Review dated November 19, 2018, as well as the Supplemental Standing Procedural
Order for Cases Seeking Social Security Review dated July 6, 2020, if then in
effect, which will govern the proceedings of the case unless vacated by a District
Court Judge to whom the case is reassigned.
II. Notification, Consent, and Reassignment
A. General Consent of the United States
The United States, by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and the Regional Counsel for the Social Security Administration, has
filed a General Consent Form with the Clerk of Court indicating its general consent
to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on cases of this nature subject to its reserved right
to withdraw the consent in a given case and to withdraw its general consent. (A
copy is attached hereto.)
B. Notice
After the case is directly assigned to a Magistrate Judge, the Clerk of Court shall
send to each party at the time of the party’s first appearance a Notice of Direct
Assignment and a Consent/Declination Form. An entry shall be made on the docket
that the Notice of Direct Assignment and a Consent/Declination Form were sent.
The Notice of Direct Assignment shall: (1) identify the Magistrate Judge to whom
the case is assigned; (2) confirm that any withdrawal of consent by the United States
must be filed no later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Notice of
Direct Assignment; (3) notify the plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel of plaintiff’s
right to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); (4)
provide a Consent/Declination Form for the plaintiff to complete and advise the
plaintiff that the executed Consent/Declination Form must be received by the Clerk
of Court within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the Notice of Direct
Assignment; and (5) advise the parties as to the Court’s procedure in the absence
of consent, or in the event of a failure to complete and submit the
Consent/Declination Form.
C. Consent Voluntary
All parties are free to request a reassignment to a District Judge without the
imposition of any adverse substantive consequences.
D. Response Mandatory
While consent to the assignment of the case to a Magistrate Judge is entirely
voluntary, submission of the Consent/Declination Form, memorializing consent or
requesting reassignment to a District Judge, is mandatory. Failure to complete and
submit the Consent/Declination Form within twenty-one (21) days, as required in
paragraph II(B) above, may be deemed consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate
Judge, and the Magistrate Judge will exercise jurisdiction for all purposes under 28
U.S.C. § 636(c), as set forth in section III. See Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580
(2003) (a party’s consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction under § 636(c) is
supplied by a “general appearance[] before the Magistrate Judge, after they had
been told of their right to be tried by a district judge”).
E. Reassignment of Cases
If the plaintiff timely consents, or fails to timely complete and submit the
Consent/Declination Form, and if the United States does not timely withdraw its
consent, the case shall be deemed assigned to the Magistrate Judge without the
necessity of an Order of referral. In the event that the plaintiff timely files a
2
declination of consent, or if the United States timely withdraws its consent, the
Clerk of Court shall reassign the case to a District Judge in accordance with existing
random assignment procedures. The assigned Magistrate Judge shall remain the
referral judge on the case, in the event the reassigned District Judge refers the case
to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.
F. Filing of Consent/Declination Forms
The Consent/Declination Forms shall be sent to and filed by the Clerk of Court.
III. Proceedings when Consent is Given by All Parties
A. Jurisdiction
If all parties consent in writing to the Magistrate Judge’s exercise of civil trial
jurisdiction, or the plaintiff is deemed to have consented by a failure to timely
complete and submit the Consent/Declination Form, the case will remain assigned
to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial and entry of final judgment.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; Loc. R. Civ. P. 72.1(III).
B. Appeal
Appeal from a final judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge may be taken to the
Court of Appeals as would any other appeal from a District Court judgment. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(c).
C. Supplement to Existing Consent Option
The direct assignment of cases to Magistrate Judges supplements, and does not
replace, the parties’ ability to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate
Judge, either initially or later, in a case assigned to a District Judge, nor does it limit
the District Judge’s authority to refer a case to a Magistrate Judge for any purpose
under 28 U.S.C. § 636, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, or Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.1.
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez .
Juan R. Sánchez
Chief Judge
Date: November 27, 2020
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CONSENT OF UNITED STATES
TO PARTICIPATE IN PILOT PROGRAM FOR
DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
APPEALS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGES
U. S. ATTORNEY
REGION AL COUNSEL - SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The United States of America hereby con ent to participate in the Court's Pilot Program
for direct as ignment of Social Security Appeals ro Magi trate Ju dges a described in the Court '
Standing Order of _ _ ("Pilot Program"'), a copy of wh ich i attached hereto.
The United States re erves the right to withdraw it con ent in a given case, and to
wi thdraw the general con ent at any time, provided the withdrawaJ of consent, whether general
or specific, is in writing and filed with the Clerk of Court.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SOCIAL SECURITY ADl\flNISTRATION
B~@JJ Ch ief, Ci ii Divi ion
BY: 11~ a ~
N~R. Koch
Regiona l Chief Coun e] , Region 1II
nited State Attorney Office. Office of the General Counsel
Eastern Di. trict of Pennsylvania
DATED : _ c---'/--:J_l__,/__t6_ _ _ DATED : -~ro-+/.T~:J.~1-+-IJ ~1g'-----
