UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 18, 2013
ESTABAN D. HERNANDEZ,
CATHY ALLISON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO DENY PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RECEIVE RESPONSE FROM FILED TRAVERSE (Doc. 30)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The instant petition was filed on June 7, 2010. (Doc. 1). On August 9, 2011, Respondent filed his Answer. (Doc. 27). On September 29, 2011, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (Doc. 29). On April 1, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant motion entitled Motion to Receive Response From Filed Traverse, which the Court construes as a request for a status report on his case or to expedite a decision, or both. (Doc. 30).
The Eastern District of California is one of the busiest federal jurisdictions in the United States and has an enormous prisoner case load. Case management at the Court proceeds by the order cases are received. The Court is aware of the existence of Petitioner's case and the length of time that it has 2 been pending. However, due to the huge prisoner caseload of the Court, and the Court's detailed and 3 diligent handling of each individual case, a Court decision often takes time. Petitioner's case will be 4 ruled on in due course. 5
With respect to Petitioner's request for a status report on his case, as noted in the Litigant Letter served on Petitioner shortly after the filing of the Petition, the Court will not respond to 7 individual inquiries regarding the status of a particular case. Petitioner was informed at the outset that 8 the Court would notify him as soon as any action is taken in his case and that as long as Petitioner 9 keeps the Court informed of his current address, he will receive all decisions that might affect the status of his case.
Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion to Receive A Response From Filed Traverse (Doc. 30), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.