If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ~-~--~--~--~~ ------­ ~------- The Roles of ) Magistrates: Nine Case Studies \ \ ~--.. .. .. wi. ' ~~~- - - -~. -"- ---- - - ~ --------------------------- c/ THE ROLES OF M'AGISTRATES: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER NINE C~E STUDIES Board Chief Justice of the United States Chairman By Carroll Seron Judge Daniel M. Friedman Chief Judge Howard C. Bratton United States Court ofAppeals United States District Court for the Federal Circuit District ofNew Mexico Judge Arlin M. Adams Judge A. David Mazzone United States Court ofAppeals United States District Court for the Third Circuit District ofMassachusetts '99226 Chief Judge Warren K. Urbom Judge Martin V. B. Bostetter, Jr. u.~. Department of Justice United States District Court United States Bankruptcy Court NatIonal Institute of Justice District ofNebraska Eastern District ofVirginia This document has been reprodu d pers?n or organization originating ifep ?~act~y .as recei~e.d from the Director of the Administrative In thIs document are those of the' ~~n so vIew or opinIons stated Office of the United States Courts represent the official pOSition or POI~~ ors ann do not necessarily Justice. ICles 0 f the National Institute of PermiSSion to reproduce thi a IF' b granted by s 0 JII) Q t61d material has been Director Public Domain A. Leo Levin Federal Judicial Center Deputy Director to the ~ationai Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Charles W. Nihan Further reproduction outside f th sion of the cap) ~It owner. 0 e NCJRS system requires perm is- Division Directors Kenneth C. Crawford William B. Eldridge Continuing Education Research and Training Federal Judicial Center Gordon Bermant Alice L. O'Donnell 1985 Innovations Inter-Judicial Affairs and Systems Development and Information Services This publication is a product of a study undertaken in furtherance \,. of the Center's statutory mission to conduct and stimulate re­ search and development on matters of judicial administration. 1520 H Street, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20005 The analyses, conclusions, and points of view are those of the Telephone 202/633-6011 author. This work has been reviewed by Center staff, and publica­ tion signifies that it is regarded as responsible and valuable. It should be· emphasized, however, that on matters of policy the ~ Center speaks only through its Board. \ ~~~--- --~ --- ------ ~ ~---- -----------~~- Cite as C. Seron, The' Roles of Magistrates: Nine Case Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS (Federal Judicial Center 1985). gr' ,~I'''' • J./~~ ':.;: .I , I;"", NCtJR'. FOREWORD ............................. ~............................................................. IX 1; '-, SUMMARy .............................. ;;. ............ .. ..... 23 ...t985.................... Xl I. INTRODUCTION ......... l.................. ,............................................ 1 . Ae&UiI!SmT"ONS II. A VIEW FROM NINE DISTRICTS ........................................ 5 This chapter describes the factors that informed the selec­ tion of districts for an in-depth case study of the use of magistrates. Based on an earlier study of all full-time mag­ istrates, six fairly distinct configurations for allocating work to magistrates were identified. These configurations and the districts selected are (1) random assignment: East­ ern North Carolina, Oregon, Southern Texas, and North­ ern Georgia; (2) judge-magistrate pairs: Eastern Pennsyl­ vania;' (3) paired de facto: Eastern Kentucky; (4) chief mag­ istrate: Northern California; (5) judge assigns: Eastern Mis­ souri; and (6) one full-time magistrate: Eastern Washing­ ton. Open-ended interviews were conducted with all judges, magistrates, and a cross section of practicing attorneys in each district; in addition, data were collected from each dis­ t trict to analyze. the outcome of magistrates' actions on dis­ 1 positive motions, nondispositive motions, and pretrial con­ f, ferences. ! 1 j: r III. COURT ADMINISTRATION AND THE ROLE OF MAG- ISTRATES.................................................................................... 15 ,t ~- '. An underlying premise of this study is that magistrates' 1: roles, as new judicial officers, must be examined in the sys­ [ temic context of a court's approach to court administration and case nlanagement. This chapter focuses on magis­ trates' inp&t in three areas of court administration: (1) meetings, (2) role of a chief magistrate, and (3) local rule making. IV. PRETRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ....................................... 25 F J C-R-85-.5 r -. \ ; iii Contents Contents Building em the systemic framework of this study, t~is chapter examines selected districts' approaches .to pretflal This chapter focuses on the scope of magistrates' duties as case management, the uniformity of these practices among pretrial officers across the selected districts. Recent judges, and magistrates' roles in this area. !his chapter changes in rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also considers the impact of recent changes m rule 16 of sought to tighten up the discovery process by encouraging the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with specific atten­ firm cutoff dates; though the Advisory Committee's report tion to holding an early scheduling conference to map out did not consider the use of magistrates in this process, pretrial preparation. there is a growing sentiment that such tasks may be dele­ gated effectively to magistrates. This chapter also considers V. MODELS FOR THE USE OF MAGISTRATES: ADDI- the delegation to magistrates of motions that may be dis­ positive of the case (other than Social Security and pris­ TIONAL JUDGE, SPECIALIST, OR TEAM PLAyER? ..... 35 oner cases). Over the course of this study, three approaches to the use of magistrates were identified. Findings d~scl?sed that mag­ IX. THE PRISONER PETITION - SOCIAL SECURITY istrates as new judicial officers of the diStflCt court, may DEBATE: A SPECIALIZED ROLE FOR MAGISTRATES 83 be app;oached as (1) additional jud~es playing a pee: role in the court; (2) specialists developmg an expertise In an Magistrates' section 636(b)(I)(B) duties are often seen as ongoing and demanding ~rea of the d?c~~t; or (3) team synonymous with the preparation of prisoner petitions and players developing discretIOnary responsIbIhty for the pre­ Social Security cases. This chapter focuses on the question trial phases of case processing. of magistrates' handling of these cases, with special consid­ eration of selected districts' management strategies. Four VI. CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED ASSIGN- approaches for handling the cases are discussed: (1) delega­ tion to magistrates for a report and recommendation, MENT PRACTICES: THE PROS AND CONS...................... 47 (2) equal allocation of cases among judges and magistrates, This chaptet explores the way work is assi~r:ed to magis­ (3) development of a questionnaire that law clerks use to trates the factors that informed these decIsIOns, and the prepare cases for the judge's review, and (4) use of law stu­ pros ~nd cons of various options. Building on earlier dents to help review and prepare the cases. themes selected courts are placed in one of two overall groups.' One group of selected courts share a centraliz~d ar­ X. APPEALS OF MAGISTRATES' ACTIONS........................... 93 rangement for assigning work from the clerk'~~ offIce to magistrates. By contrast, a common feature of th~ second This chapter presents an empirical analysis of the outcome group of districts is that assignments are d~centrahzed and of magistrates' actions on dispositive motions, originate from each judge's chamber; vaflous. procedures nondispositive motions, and pretrial conferences for statis­ were identified, including districts where magIstrates .are tical year 1982. paired with a group of judges, where a judge mak~s assIg.n­ ments directly to a magistrate, and where t~e chIef magIs­ XI. SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS ................................................ 111 trate makes assignments at the request of a Judge. APPENDIX A: Questionnaires to Lawyers, District Judges, and VII. CIVIL TRIALS UPON CONSENT: CAN MAGISTRATES Magistrates ....................... ................................................ .......... ......... 115 BE ADDITIONAL JUDGES? ................................................... 59 This chapter examines selected courts' approaches ,to, mag­ APPENDIX B: Tables 30 and 31: Background Data for Lawyem istrates' handling of civil cases under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) as \ Interviewed in Selected Districts .................................................... 129 well as the number and types of cases assigned to magis­ trates. An additional question is presented: In light of t~e APPENDIX C: Framework for Analysis of Appeals of Magis- pretrial responsibilities that m~gi~trates ~ay ha?dle, IS trates' Section 636(b) Actions for Statistical Year 1982 .............. 133 there reason to assume, a prIOfl, that mcreasmg the number of section 636(c) assignments is necessarily the best APPENDIX D: Request for Instructions on Handling of Dis­ use of magistrates' time? positive Civil Motions, Eastern District of North Carolina ....... 143 VIII. OTHER FORMAL AND INFORMAL DUTIES: A NEW APPENDIX E: Law Clerk's Report Form for Social Security \ TEAM PLAYER OR A SPECIALIST? .................................... 69 Cases, Eastern District of Kentucky, Covington Division .......... 147 1. iv v 'i -~~-~----~-------~-------- LIST OF TABLES 1. Districts by Assignment Arrangement ............................