(SS) Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 10 CHARLES CAMPBELL, Case No. 1:25-cv-00574-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 12 CONSIDER WHETHER TO CONSENT TO v. THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL 13 MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND VACATING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, AUGUST 20, 2025 HEARING ON MOTION Defendant.

16 On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff Charles Campbell, who is proceeding pro se, commenced this 17 action until Title 42 of the United States Code, seeking review of a final decision of the 18 Commissioner of Social Security. (ECF No. 1.) On July 14, 2025, the Commissioner filed a 19 motion to dismiss, arguing that this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s administrative 20 request for review remains pending with the Appeals Council. (ECF No. 8.) While this case and 21 motion are properly before the undersigned, L.R. 302(c)(15), the Court notes that neither party 22 has consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge. 23 In the typical social security review, the parties would have 90 days in which to file 24 consent forms. (See ECF No. 5.) However, the Commissioner has moved to dismiss for failure 25 to state a claim, which does not implicate the same time requirements as a typical social security 26 review. Accordingly, the Court will direct the parties to consider whether to consent to the 27 jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge and make a determination within fourteen (14) days 1 from the service of this order. 2 For the parties’ benefit, the Court observes that “[j]udges in the Eastern District of 3 California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” Rush Air Sports, LLC v. RDJ Grp. 4 Holdings, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00385-LJO-JLT, 2019 WL 4879211, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019); 5 Pizana v. SanMedica Int’l, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO, 2020 WL 469336, at *7 n.8 6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020); see also Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill, et al., An Important Letter to 7 Congress from the Judges of the Eastern District of California Regarding Our Caseload Crisis, 8 (June 19, 2018) https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/news-archive/important- 9 letter-re-caseload-crisis/ (noting that in 2018, “[e]ach District Judge handles an average of 10 approximately 900 cases at any given time, more than double the nationwide average”). 11 Therefore, the Court advises the parties “to []consider consent to conduct all further 12 proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, whose schedules are far more realistic and 13 accommodating to parties.” Rush Air, 2019 WL 4879211, at *1; see 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2). That 14 said, the parties “are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.” 28 15 U.S.C. 636(c)(2). 16 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 17 1. The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the service of this order to consider 18 whether to consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. If a party would like to 19 consent, they are directed to file a notice indicating as such. If either party does not 20 file a notice of consent within fourteen (14) days, the Court will construe that as 21 withholding consent. Again, either party is “free to withhold consent without adverse 22 substantive consequences.” 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2); 23 2. The August 20, 2025 hearing on the motion to dismiss is VACATED; 24 3. Should the parties consent, the Court will deem the matter submitted when the 25 Commissioner files a reply or the time to file a reply expires. Should one or both 26 parties not consent, this matter will be reassigned to a district judge, who will 27 determine whether to place the matter on their hearing calendar or refer the motion to 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a consent form. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 4 Dated: _ July 14, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28