Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

GERALD L. TUCKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

STUART J. RYAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

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

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR ORDER OF COURT’S DISPOSITION

(Doc. 54)

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

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 57 Filed 08/09/07 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

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.

Dated: August 9, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 57 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 2