FILED
2020 DEC 30
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
IN THE MATTER OF ASSIGNING ALL
NON-PRISONER PRO SE CASES TO GENERAL ORDER 20-034
MAGISTRATE JUDGES
(PENDING CONSENT)
To maximize the timely, uniform, and efficient disposition of non-prisoner pro se
cases in this District, all such cases will be directly and randomly assigned to a full-
time magistrate judge, except the few categories of cases noted below. Under 28
U.S.C. § 636(c), upon the consent of the parties, a magistrate judge may preside over
a case until completion of the matter and entry of a judgment. The court currently
assigns all appeals from the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to
the magistrate judges, pending consent of the parties, and the court now implements
a similar procedure for the assignment of non-prisoner pro se cases.
If any party requests reassignment to a district judge or fails to timely return the
consent form, the case will be reassigned to a district judge, and the Clerk’s Office
will enter a referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to the magistrate judge who was
initially assigned to the case.
The following types of pro se cases, however, should not be directly assigned to
magistrate judges:
a. Pro se prisoner cases, including civil rights complaints and petitions filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or 28 U.S.C. § 2255;
b. Bankruptcy appeals;
c. Patent cases; and
d. Qui Tam cases.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that beginning on January 1, 2021, the
Clerk’s Office is directed to implement the following procedure for case assignment of
1
non-prisoner pro se cases:
1. At case opening, the Clerk’s Office will randomly assign all non-prisoner pro se
cases to a full-time magistrate judge. Except for the types of cases noted
above, this procedure will apply to all non-prisoner pro se cases, including
cases in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
2. When the Clerk’s Office opens a pro se case, the consent clerk will send the
consent paperwork to the plaintiff (and, in a removed action, to any other parties
who have been served) in an effort to obtain written consent to permit the
magistrate judge to preside over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
3. The plaintiff will have 28 days from the date the Clerk’s Office mails the form to
return it to the court. Until the plaintiff’s consent is obtained or refused—or until
the deadline to consent has passed—the magistrate judge’s authority is limited
to the authority granted under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Therefore, if the
assigned magistrate judge intends to deny a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, and the plaintiff’s consent has not yet been obtained, the denial must
be in the form of a report and recommendation for the Chief Judge (or
designee) to review.
4. If the pro se plaintiff fails to return the consent paperwork by the deadline or
declines to consent, the Clerk’s Office will randomly assign the case to a district
judge and automatically enter a referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to the
same magistrate judge who was initially assigned.
5. If the pro se litigant consents to the magistrate judge presiding over the case,
the magistrate judge may exercise full authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for the
purpose of screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and DUCivR 3-2 (in
an IFP case) or to conduct a jurisdictional review (in a non-IFP case).
6. In an IFP case, if the case survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and
DUCivR 3-2, the consent clerk will send consent paperwork when the court
orders that the United States Marshals Service serve the complaint and
summons.
7. In a non-IFP case, if the case survives the initial jurisdictional review, the
consent clerk will include the consent paperwork for each defendant when
2
issuing a summons. The plaintiff will be required to include the consent
paperwork when serving the summons and complaint.
8. Unless and until all served defendants consent, the magistrate judge’s
assignment will again be deemed to be a referral from the Chief Judge under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
9. If, at any time, a defendant does not consent to the magistrate judge presiding
over the case, including when a later-joined defendant is added, the Clerk’s
Office will randomly assign the case to a district judge and automatically enter a
referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to the same magistrate judge who was
initially assigned.
10. When a non-prisoner pro se case is assigned to a magistrate judge and time is
of the essence (e.g., a motion for a temporary restraining order is filed), the
magistrate judge may (but is not required to) enter a docket text order directing
the Clerk’s Office to randomly reassign the case to a district judge so that the
matter may be promptly addressed. At the same time, the Clerk’s Office will
also enter an automatic referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to the same
magistrate judge who was initially assigned.
11. All consent forms or requests for reassignment must be confidentially returned
to the Clerk of Court, either by emailing the form as a pdf file to
[email protected] or by mailing them to the court, directed to the
attention of the consent clerk.
12. Defendants will have 7 days from the date of filing the Answer or other
responsive pleading to return the consent form or request for reassignment.
13. If the plaintiff consents, and the case is still in the initial review phase or
screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and DUCivR 3-2, the consent clerk
will docket the consent form. Otherwise, no consent paperwork will be
docketed, unless all served defendants consent to the jurisdiction of the
magistrate judge. If the case is reassigned, the parties' forms will not be made
part of the court record, and no judge in the case will know which defendants
requested reassignment or failed to return the consent paperwork.
14. If a later-added defendant in a case that had previously been assigned to a
3
magistrate judge declines to consent (or fails to timely return the consent form),
the magistrate judge may be aware—because of the timing of the consent
process—that the defendant failed to consent or to return the form, but there will
be no negative consequence when a party does not consent.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
