RB wouldn't post this. Maybe size? This is about Federal Magistrates.
There duties appear to be clearing dockets, conferences and settling cases with agreement of the parties. Like a Physicians Asst to a Physician, Nurse to a Physician. Nurses Asst to Nurse, Radiology Technician to a Radiologist. Of course other fields have similar assistants positions that relieve the burden on the head dog. All have varying degrees of responsibility and authority.
uscourts.gov
A View of the Magistrate Judges System
Judge Philip M. Pro was appointed to the District Court for the District of Nevada in 1987. Prior to that he served as a
magistrate judge. He is chair of the Judicial Conference's Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System.
Q: As chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System, what do
you view as the committee's objectives?
A: The primary objective of the Magistrate Judges Committee is to discharge as effectively as possible the responsibilities given
us by the Judicial Conference to oversee the operation and development of the magistrate judges system.
Twice a year our committee meets and considers requests from various districts for the establishment of new magistrate judge
positions or changes in existing magistrate judge positions and makes appropriate recommendations to the Judicial Conference
for final action. Our committee also considers a wide range of policy issues relating to the operation of the magistrate judges
system including the selection and appointment procedures for magistrate judges, the jurisdiction and utilization of magistrate
judges, and matters such as salaries, retirement benefits, and staff and support services for magistrate judges. Because our
committee is comprised of circuit and district judges from each circuit, as well as three at-large magistrate judges, we also
operate as a liaison with the various districts and circuits to consider proposals for the improvement of the magistrate judges
system.
Q: How many magistrate judges are there in the judicial system, and, generally, how do district courts use their
services?
A: As of September 1996, the Judicial Conference has authorized 422 full-time positions, 77 part-time positions, and 3
combination clerk/magistrate judge positions nationwide. In addition, 15 retired magistrate judges are serving on a recalled
basis. This is a far cry from the 61 full-time and 449 part-time magistrate judge positions originally authorized by the Judicial
Conference in 1970.
I think anyone who serves on our committee is immediately struck by the array of duties performed by magistrate judges and
the different ways in which they are utilized in districts throughout the country. The magistrate judges system is inherently
flexible, designed to address needs that are common to every district court, while at the same time maintaining the ability to
meet different and sometimes unique needs that exist in various districts. As a result, the utilization of magistrate judges varies
from district to district in response to local conditions and changing caseloads.
Virtually all magistrate judges conduct preliminary proceedings in felony cases and try misdemeanor and petty offense cases. In
some courts, magistrate judges are also referred pretrial duties in felony cases, including non-dispositive and case-dispositive
motions and pretrial conferences. With respect to civil cases, magistrate judges conduct almost all pretrial proceedings in some
courts, preparing the case for trial before the assigned district judge. In other courts, magistrate judges are assigned duties in
civil cases on a selected basis in accordance with the preferences of the assigning district judge. In many courts, prisoner cases
are routinely referred to magistrate judges for pretrial management and the preparation of reports and recommendations.
Magistrate judges also are heavily involved in conducting settlement conferences in civil cases in many districts.
I think one of the most important developments within the magistrate judges system in recent years has been the growth of the
number of civil cases tried or otherwise disposed of by magistrate judges with the consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.
636(c). Finally, the involvement of magistrate judges in the area of court governance is increasing. Magistrate judges currently
serve on many of the committees of the Judicial Conference as well as various circuit committees. In many districts, magistrate
judges also play a substantial role in local court administration, which I think is a healthy development.
Q: How are magistrate judge positions authorized?
A: Magistrate judge positions are authorized by the Judicial Conference upon the recommendation of the Magistrate Judges
Committee and are subject to subsequent funding by Congress through the appropriation process. In determining the number,
location, and salaries of magistrate judge positions, our committee considers the recommendations of the appointing district
court, the relevant judicial council of the circuit, and the Administrative Office. The committee reviews the continuing need for
existing magistrate judge positions in each district every four or five years, and responds to requests for additional magistrate
judge positions received from the district courts.
In evaluating a request for a new full-time magistrate judge position, the committee principally directs its attention to three
criteria: the caseload of the district court as a whole and the comparative need of the district judges for additional assistance
from magistrate judges; the effectiveness of the existing magistrate judges system in the district and the commitment of the court
to the effective use of magistrate judges; and the sufficiency of judicial business of the sort that the district judges intend to
assign to magistrate judges to warrant the addition of a full-time position. The committee also gives consideration to other
pertinent factors that may be presented in a particular situation.
Q: The 1996 Federal Courts Improvement Act contains a number of provisions affecting magistrate judges. What
are these provisions, and why are they needed?
A: I think one of the most significant changes is that magistrate judges will now be able to try certain classes of petty offense
cases without the consent of the defendant. Under prior law, defendants charged with petty offenses could elect to be tried by
an Article III judge. Trial by a magistrate judge could only occur when the defendant filed a written consent to the dispositive
authority of a magistrate judge. The new law eliminates the consent requirement in class B misdemeanors charging a motor
vehicle offense, class C misdemeanors, and infractions. In addition, in all other misdemeanor and petty offense cases, the
consent of the defendant may now be expressed in writing or orally on the record.
Additionally, magistrate judges temporarily assigned to another judicial district because of an emergency are now authorized to
dispose of civil consent cases with the consent of the parties. This technical correction was necessary because of the failure to
amend 28 U.S.C. 636(f) (the emergency assignment provision) when the civil consent provisions were enacted in 1979. I think
this change is particularly important given the potential for the inter-district assignment of magistrate judges.
Two other provisions in the Federal Courts Improvement Act were recommended in the Long Range Plan for the Federal
Courts. First, where parties to a civil action have consented to the case-dispositive authority of a magistrate judge, prior law
would have permitted an appeal of the judgment to either the court of appeals or to a district judge. Experience showed that the
appeal route to a district judge was very rarely invoked and, in fact, was discouraged in most cases. The Federal Courts
Improvement act eliminates the alternative route of appeal to a district judge in civil consent cases. Second, the act expanded
the statutory membership of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center to include a magistrate judge.
Q: The magistrate judges system is nearly 30 years old. Have the original intentions of the legislation been
reached?
A: I think the evolution of the magistrate judges system over the past 30 years is one of the great success stories of the federal
Judiciary. The Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 created a new type of judicial officer to replace the 175-year-old U.S.
commissioner system which had been limited basically to conducting preliminary proceedings in criminal cases and trying petty
offenses. The magistrate judges system was intended to increase the overall efficiency of the federal judiciary by relieving the
district judges of some of their caseload burdens in civil and criminal cases, and to provide a high standard of justice at the point
where many individuals first come into contact with the courts. I think the magistrate judges system has done that and will
continue to do so.
District judges have come to rely heavily on magistrate judges for assistance in managing their civil and criminal caseloads and
for assisting in other phases of court administration. I think this is entirely understandable given the flexibility of the magistrate
judges system to meet the needs of the individual districts and also because it is the district judges who select people of such
quality to occupy the position of magistrate judge. Indeed, the credit for the development of the magistrate judges system over
the past 30 years must go principally to the judges throughout the country whose efforts to utilize magistrate judges effectively
has helped the Judiciary meet its responsibilities. |
