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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT