The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"The Parties in ALL Civil Unassigned/NONE Cases … Should Expect That No Matter … Will Be Addressed by a District Judge"
That's the announcement in the Fresno (Cal.) division of the federal district court. "For practical purposes, this means that all matters set before the district judge in these cases are effectively STAYED until further notice."
From an order entered in several cases Thursday in the Eastern District of California federal court:
As U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd conveyed in a standing order re judicial emergency issued in February 2020, to have a single district judge attempt to manage two excessive caseloads in the Fresno courthouse of the Eastern District of California—currently a combined 1305 civil cases and over 745 criminal defendants—is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Judge Drozd has now worked tirelessly for more than twenty months to maintain not only his own caseload but all of the cases currently bearing the designation "Unassigned" or "NONE." The court initiated this arrangement with the understanding that Judge Drozd's efforts would be needed on an interim basis until a new judge was appointed to assume this second caseload. That "interim" solution has now been in place for far longer than originally anticipated and can no longer be maintained, particularly in light of reductions, over time, to staff devoted to the unassigned caseload.
While the court is hopeful that a new district judge will be appointed in the near future, it must ensure the valuable judicial resource that Judge Drozd represents is deployed in a manner that enables him to dedicate sufficient time to the adjudication of the critical issues before him and ensures his ability to perform his essential duties is sustained. Therefore, until a new district judge is appointed to fill at least one of the two long-standing vacancies in the Fresno courthouse and is able to begin hearing cases, the parties in ALL civil Unassigned/NONE cases are hereby advised they should expect that no matter in any of those cases will be addressed by a district judge.
[Footnote:] 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. The court will merely issue a minute order granting or denying any such request. The parties are cautioned, however, that delays due to the lack of judicial resources in this district have plagued the NONE cases since the court's Standing Order issued more than twenty months ago and should come as no surprise to the impacted litigants. 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.
For practical purposes, this means that all matters set before the district judge in these cases are effectively STAYED until further notice. Scheduled hearings and trials in the Unassigned/NONE caseload will be continued or vacated by minute orders issued in those specific cases, subject to rescheduling upon the seating of a new district judge. Judge Drozd's Standing Order will continue to be issued in newly filed cases allocated to the NONE caseload, and that Standing Order provides the contact information for the Courtroom Deputy Clerk assigned to monitor the NONE caseload. If that Standing Order conflicts with the provisions of this order, however, this order controls.
Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636, Local Rule 302, and all other applicable authorities, the magistrate judges assigned to Unassigned/NONE civil cases may, in their discretion, elect to stay discovery and other proceedings in these cases entirely or may allow proceedings that do not require the attention of a district judge to continue to move forward.
This order should not be construed as a revocation of Judge Drozd's authority to issue orders in the Unassigned/NONE civil caseload over which he still formally presides, to the extent he in his sole discretion deems such orders necessary. The parties may as always consider consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction, which could alleviate some of the delays associated with the unprecedented emergency that, unfortunately, continues to impact this court.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston was nominated to fill the empty Fresno federal judgeship, but only on Sept. 20 of this year; her Judiciary Committee hearing was Oct. 20.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A bit interesting, but thought we'd hear from EV about that Florida university ordering professors not to present testimony in a suit against a DeSantis backed law by now...
Et tu?
Perhaps you can hire him to write about it.
Has Trump hired him to write so much about getting the feds into regulating social media?
Directly or indirectly?
Good grief. Are you trying to compete with LTG for top thread-shitter?
They are free to testify. They are not free to take a job testifying.
http://statements.ufl.edu/statements/2021/october/university-statement-on-academic-freedom-and-free-speech.html
My ex-wife was an admin at UCSF, and controls on income derived from outside sources was continually an issue that the docs routinely made efforts to evade. As full time employees they were supposed to turn such over to UCSF, I assume on the presumption that they were working using time already paid for by UCSF.
...SF meaning, in this case, San Francisco, not, say, Southern Fklorida.
Keep digging, dullard. I enjoy watching you flail and fail.
(Don't expect Prof. Volokh to endorse your apparent argument about extracurricular work by full-time faculty of state schools -- or the associated dollars).
The shortage of federal judges in all California district courts has been a real crisis for years. It’s shocking that they are half staffed, etc. During Trump years you could blame the blue slip. But what the hell have Biden and Schumer and Feinstein been doing? They could have had the vacancies filled by now. Absolutely no excuses. I’m a conservative, but just put a bunch of liberals in there. Anything to get some bodies in those seats. It makes no sense how they didn’t have a list of 50 nominees nominated by February 1, 2017 and confirmed by end of year. It makes no sense. There is nothing stopping them.
I think you meant February 1, 2021?
Yes! Man, it’s been a long year, lol.
"It makes no sense."
When you make all personnel decisions based on race and gender, sometimes there aren’t enough candidates among the preferred races and genders to fill the roles.
Plus you have to sort out whose minions get the patronage.
It likely is less complex when a single entity -- the Federalist Society -- calls every shot.
"When you make all personnel decisions based on race and gender, sometimes there aren’t enough candidates among the preferred races and genders to fill the roles."
Which period do you prefer, Ben? The Trump period (during which this problem developed), when being a young, White, male clinger was the (only) ticket to the federal bench . . . or the Biden period (when this problem continued), in which a more diverse candidate pool has been considered?
Because you seem such a fan of a White, male, right-wing, old-timey blog, I predict you choose the stale, bigoted approach of the Trump era.
A Justice System that does not have sufficient resources is neither a system or justice. The word everyone is looking for is 'disgrace'.
As for waiting for Prof. Volokh to comment on the University of Florida situation many of us expect that commentary will be forthcoming. After all, it is the weekend and Prof. Volokh who writes on this Forum voluntarily and without compensation is not required to sacrifice his personal time to meet any deadlines.
The correct concern is the wait for Prof. Blackman and others who have written extensively on perceived academic and freedom of speech issues at universities when their conservative bias has been attacked to write as much condemnation of the University of Florida as they have written on university/free speech issues that favor their political positions. But don't hold your breath on that.
"The University of Florida situation"
Maybe whomever you’re waiting for doesn't know WTF you are talking about. Is it one of those leftist innuendo things where you won't directly say what it is — because when you say it outright it sounds like completely phony, manufactured outrage over nothing, but when you obliquely refer to it you can pretend it’s something weighty?
After looking, I think the 'great scandal' here is that several professors employed by Florida were told that testifying against the Florida government in a lawsuit could be a conflict of interest from the view of their employment with the University.
I found out from a FIRE press release, so they've already sounded off on the issue.
It seems like someone here is trying to equate some people being told they cannot take an outside paying job with the harassment and firing, the silencing, and mob violence against speakers, students, or professors that wrongthink.
Even if Florida is in the wrong here (and FIRE makes it sound like they probably are), these two things are in no way close to each other.
I had head nothing about this before Queenie's complaint, so there's that.
As I understand UF's statement the profs are free to volunteer to work against Florida's interests, which is more leeway than I'd give them if they were my employees.
I'm a professional engineer, and if I were to take any side jobs in the field I'd expect to have to clear them with my employer, as it would be a conflict of interest for me to be paid by any of our competitors. I do occasional work for customers, but my employer gets paid for that.
They might even be more ticked at me if I volunteered to work for a competitor for free, mind you. I gather the university people are not at will?
Testifying in court seems unique to me. I mean, if I were to go up to one of these professors and pay them money to not testify, I'd wind up in prison. Should the university be able to essentially do that?
I'd assume that they would never be at-will even if they aren't tenured. The university doesn't want someone quitting halfway through a semester after all.
My understanding is that they were testifying as experts, not witnesses. Does the "pay them not to testify" being a crime still apply?
Serious question, as "pay a professional not to do or discuss their profession" is perfectly legal in other situations.
It's a federal case, so let's look at federal law. 18 U.S. Code § 201 says in relevant part:
There's an exception for "in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying." There's no such exception for *preventing* an expert witness from testifying, though.
FIRE seems tio be relying exclusively on the leugenpresse account in the NYT, which is behind a paywall but which I suspect, based on past performance, makes no mention of the prof's probable contractual obligations. FIRE should know better.
https://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-university-of-florida-decision-to-prevent-professors-from-testifying-in-voting-rights-lawsuit/
* profs'
All of the comments seem to ignore the fact that the University of Florida is a state actor, not a private employer and thus subject to the limits it can impose on the speech of its employees by the Constitution. This is different with private employers.
Get your head in the game people. As for the claim that this is an obscure story not well publicized, well those who rail at other obscure university related attacks on speech seem to have no trouble finding those incidents. So maybe we just have a case of willful ignorance, or at least ignorance.
Isn't one of the primary issues less the professors' advocacy on their own time and dime, but rather the conflict of interest of getting paid to testify against the state while being employed by the state as a full-time employee? How can they fulfill their full-time responsibilities as professors at the university while taking such employment?
"How can they fulfill their full-time responsibilities as professors at the university while taking such employment?"
This is another Kozinski Moment -- Prof. Volokh is strongly positioned to opine but seems destined to take the coward's course of silence.
The prediction was wrong. Prof. Volokh has (elsewhere) expressly questioned the reported effort to prevent Florida faculty from testifying or providing expert assistance.
...
The first articles mentioning the case came out just hours before your comment.
I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the blogfather not jumping onto your bandwagon for a few hours is not "willful ignorance". This might be a radical idea to you, but please consider it.