ILNews

Indiana gets new federal magistrate

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the first time since the early 1980s, the Southern District of Indiana has gotten approval to hire a new full-time federal magistrate.

The U.S. Judicial Conference, which is the policy-making arm of the federal court system, approved during its annual fall meeting on Tuesday the Indianapolis-based magistrate spot along with three others throughout the country.

“We are very pleased about this, and it’ll certainly help our magistrates process their work even more efficiently,” said Chief Judge Richard Young, a member of the Judicial Conference that approved the measure. “We have one of the highest weighted caseloads in the country, and so this will help us process our work more quickly and get the litigants through the system a little quicker.”

Congress had previously authorized the Judicial Conference to create these new positions, and the funding for the magistrate begins April 1, 2011. The conference’s Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System had agreed in June that the Southern District of Indiana should get an additional magistrate since it’s one of the busiest courts nationally. Chief Judge Young sat on that committee, as well.

With ongoing budget and economic woes, the chief judge said it’s not likely that Congress will approve any new judgeships in the near future and that means other judicial help is needed. Chief Judge Young said the magistrate would be based in Indianapolis where space is available, and that one of the points the committee had considered was how the District wouldn’t have to find or rent space as a budget expense.

Applications for the position will be accepted in the coming weeks, according to Chief Judge Young. Once those applications are received, a merit-selection panel will review the applications and interview the individuals who apply before recommending five finalists for the District judges to consider.

The process will mirror what happened earlier this year when the District received 52 applications for a magistrate vacancy, created when U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson was elevated to a federal judgeship. In August, the court selected Indianapolis attorney Mark Dinsmore to take that position, and he’s currently awaiting a background check before he begins his work.

Chief Judge Young said this process is different only in that the court will be operating at full judge and magistrate capability and not trying to fill a vacancy. The new magistrate will join current full-time Magistrate Judges Tim Baker, Debra McVicker Lynch, William Hussman, and Dinsmore; as well as part-time Magistrates Craig McKee and Mike Naville who handle search warrant and criminal matters; and recalled Magistrate Kennard Foster.

Aside from that magistrate addition, the Southern District is also watching for possible impact from another Judicial Conference action that created a pilot project allowing cameras in some District Courts. The Southern District was part of a similar project in the early 1990s and that could make it a contender for this new project, though which courts will be allowed to participate hasn’t been decided.

What has been determined is that participating courts will record proceedings at the trial judge’s discretion, and that all parties must give their consent. The Federal Judicial Center will conduct a study on the pilot and provide reports during the first two years and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will pay for any equipment and training that’s needed. The conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management will flush out the details and logistics, though no timeline exists for now.

“Technology has changed so much and you just didn’t have social media networks and things like Facebook in the 90s,” Chief Judge Young said. “We want to see how this plays out now, in this new world of public access.”

In addition to the cameras and magistrate actions, the Judicial Conference also:

- Approved a new strategic plan for the federal judiciary that focuses on enhancing court accessibility, timeliness and efficiency, as well as attracting and retaining judicial and court executive talent, and efforts for increased education and training for judges and staff on various court issues. The plan is available online.

- Found a continuing need for all authorized bankruptcy judgeships -- 316 permanent and 36 temporary positions, and recommended that Congress not eliminate any of them in light of a 20 percent increase in filings between June 2009 and June 2010. The Senate is considering a bill that would create 13 additional bankruptcy judgeships and convert 22 existing temporary ones into permanent spots.

- Approved the creation of a public access program involving the Government Printing Office, American Association of Law Libraries, and Administrative Office of U.S. Courts that would offer free training and education to the public about the Public Access And Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. The program would also exempt from billing the first $50 of quarterly usage by a participating library.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT