Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00386-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADOLFO RAMIREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

BERNIE ELLIS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

(Doc. 13)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On April 6, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition in this Court. (Doc.1). On July 20,

2007, Petitioner filed a motion for issuance of a scheduling order. (Doc. 11). On December 14,

2007, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the instant 

petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and denied Petitioner’s motion for issuance of a

scheduling order as moot. (Doc. 12). On December 21, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for an

expeditious resolution of the petition. (Doc. 13). 

Petitioner’s motion for an expeditious resolution of the petition alleges that he is

incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California with a projected release date

of September 24, 2008, and requests that the Court rule on his petition in an expedited manner or

grant him an emergency hearing. (Doc. 13). 

The Court does not have a separate “expedited” calendar. The Court understands

Petitioner’s need and desire to have his case decided quickly as he believes that relief is

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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 in which 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. 

In this particular case, the Court has conducted its screening of the habeas petition for

jurisdictional purposes, and on December 14, 2007, issued findings and recommendations

recommending that the instant petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 12). 

Additionally, on December 14, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for a scheduling order

as moot, in light of the Court’s conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to proceed. (Id.). In light of

the issuance of the findings and recommendations and the Court’s conclusion therein that it lacks

jurisdiction to proceed, the Court determines that Petitioner’s motion for expedited review or

emergency hearing (Doc. 13) is also moot. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for expedited review or emergency hearing (Doc. 13),

is DENIED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 2