Tucker v. Ryan

Full title: GERALD L. TUCKER, Petitioner, v. STUART J. RYAN, Warden, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 9, 2007

1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG HC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007)

Opinion

1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG HC.

August 9, 2007

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF COURT'S DISPOSITION (Doc. 54)

THERESA GOLDNER, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 27, 2004, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. (Doc. 1.) On November 3, 2005, Respondent file a response to the petition. (Doc. 43). On November 28, 2005, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (Doc. 46). On December 1, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Order of Court's Disposition (Doc. 54), in which Petitioner appears to request that the Court rule on his petition. Although not expressly captioned as such, the motion appears to request an expedited decision. This construction is supported by the fact that on July 17, 2007 Petitioner filed a document inquiring about the status of his petition. (Doc. 56). Therefore, the Court will construe the motion as a Motion to Expedite, and, in so construing said motion, deny it.

The Court does not have a separate "expedited" calendar. The Court understands Petitioner's need and desire to have his case heard quickly as he believes that relief is warranted. However, the Court has pending before it at any given time hundreds of habeas cases wherein each prisoner alleges that relief is warranted and warranted immediately. Case management at the court proceeds by the order cases are received. Due to the high volume of such cases and the Court's diligent handling of each case, a court decision often takes time. Petitioner can rest assured that the Court acts to resolve all pending cases in the most efficient manner possible. Petitioner may also rest assured that his case will be reviewed in the order in which it was received and that no other cases will be given priority over his, once his case is ready for review.

Petitioner's case will be heard in due course. Accordingly, his Motion for Order of Court's Disposition (Doc. 54), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.