U.S. v. CHAPIN, 2:17-CR-0053 WBS. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170825e33
Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2017
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . A judge who has taken senior status is not under the same obligation as an active judge to carry a full caseload or to accept every case randomly assigned to him by the court's Automated Case Assignment System. See 28 U.S.C. 294(c) (a senior judge "may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake"); see also Locricchio v. Cont'l Inv. Co. , No. CIV. 10-00710 ACK, 2013 WL 593354, at *9 n.6 (D. Haw. Feb. 14, 2013
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . A judge who has taken senior status is not under the same obligation as an active judge to carry a full caseload or to accept every case randomly assigned to him by the court's Automated Case Assignment System. See 28 U.S.C. 294(c) (a senior judge "may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake"); see also Locricchio v. Cont'l Inv. Co. , No. CIV. 10-00710 ACK, 2013 WL 593354, at *9 n.6 (D. Haw. Feb. 14, 2013)..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
A judge who has taken senior status is not under the same obligation as an active judge to carry a full caseload or to accept every case randomly assigned to him by the court's Automated Case Assignment System. See 28 U.S.C. § 294(c) (a senior judge "may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake"); see also Locricchio v. Cont'l Inv. Co., No. CIV. 10-00710 ACK, 2013 WL 593354, at *9 n.6 (D. Haw. Feb. 14, 2013) (noting that a senior judge had the "prerogative to decline to accept on his docket" cases involving requests for temporary restraining orders). Because of a lack of mutual respect between the undersigned judge and the lawyer for one of the defendants, the undersigned exercises his prerogative as a senior judge to decline to accept assignment of this case. This case is accordingly referred back to the Chief Judge of this court for reassignment to another judge. The matter is dropped from this court's calendar of August 28, 2017, subject to being reset at the convenience of the judge to whom the case is reassigned. The Clerk of the Court shall make an appropriate adjustment in the assignment of cases to compensate for the undersigned's withdrawal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
