U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Prose, speaking about her first year as a federal judge on Thursday, described multiple eye-opening experiences on the bench, including the revelation that some litigants are not actually seeking a speedy trial.

“I’ve been surprised to see how frequently folks actually don’t want to go to trial. It’s not just defendants in these cases. It’s sometimes plaintiffs,” she said.

Prose added that in civil cases assigned to her, she sets a trial date at the parties’ initial scheduling conference, with dates for longer trials available in late 2025 at the soonest. Still, Prose said she is frustrated when parties want to put their federal lawsuit on hold, potentially to talk about settlement at some undefined point in the future.

“Please, folks, don’t use the court as a bulletin board. Don’t file your case and put a pin in it and then say, ‘Let’s let it sit there,'” she warned. “I have an obligation to move that case forward. I have an obligation to you.”

Last May, Prose began work as a magistrate judge on Colorado’s federal trial court. Unlike district judges, who the president appoints and the U.S. Senate confirms for life, magistrate judges are screened by a selection panel, hired by the district judges and serve for eight-year terms. They focus on preliminary and administrative tasks in cases but can handle many of the same duties as district judges, including presiding over civil cases on their own.

Prose came to the court after a long career as a government attorney. She spent time at the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office, where she was involved in litigation in the wake of the Columbine High School massacre. Prose then joined the Colorado Attorney General’s Office and subsequently the U.S. Attorney’s Office. There, she represented federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Primarily, however, she defended the Federal Bureau of Prisons and its employees from civil rights lawsuits brought by incarcerated plaintiffs. Now, Prose is the magistrate judge assigned to screen complaints filed by self-represented, or “pro se,” prisoners. She advised the audience of attorneys at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse to put in reasonable effort if they wind up litigating against a pro se plaintiff.

Prose described a civil case in which defense counsel submitted a proposed pretrial order, but noted there was no input from the plaintiff “because he’s incarcerated.”

“I just want to let you know,” Prose said, “my expectation is you will find yourself en route to Cañon City to confer with that gentleman, by phone or in person or on a video call.”

She added: “I know these issues can be difficult, but I have high expectations for you. … When you see the prisoners and where they live, you begin to have — it’s inevitable that you will have a heightened sensitivity to due process concerns.”

Prose also touched on cases that implicate qualified immunity, a judicial doctrine that generally shields government officials from civil lawsuits unless they violate a person’s clearly established legal rights. Plaintiffs must demonstrate qualified immunity does not apply, typically by citing a prior court decision in a highly similar case that would have put public employees on notice their conduct amounted to a constitutional violation.

“Here’s the thing, though. Maybe I think that that constitutional question is closer than you do,” she said, addressing defense lawyers. Prose explained she does not always see “fulsome briefing” from government defendants on qualified immunity, requiring her to look up prior cases herself.

“That delays things for you. I’m gonna go looking for that case and I’m especially going to do it if your opponent is a pro se litigant,” she warned.

Prose further implored attorneys to manage their clients’ expectations, especially if she is involved with facilitating a settlement in a civil case. She recalled a “disconcerting experience” involving a litigant who faced, in her estimation, a serious risk of losing at trial.

“I literally had a plaintiff walk away from a multimillion-dollar settlement offer,” Prose said. “It keeps me up at night. I worry about it. I’m sad about it. Please help me manage your client’s expectations. The attorney was so convinced that he had the case of the century that he did not give me the courtesy of listening to my risk assessment of the case. And further, he convinced his client not to listen to me.”

The discussion was sponsored by the Faculty of Federal Advocates. There are additional presentations scheduled later this summer from U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews and Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty.