Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01782/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01782-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on October 31, 2012. (Doc. 1). On March 15, 2013, Respondent 

filed the Answer. (Doc. 21). Petitioner filed his Traverse on April 16, 2013. (Doc. 25). The case is 

now ready for a decision on the merits. 

On November 25, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant motion, requesting that the Court take into 

consideration a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court the Court, i.e., Florida v. Jardines, 

2013 WL 1196577, __U.S.__, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013). 

DISCUSSION

When deciding habeas petitions on their merits, the Court considers all relevant precedent from 

both the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, and, of course, from the United States 

RAYMOND G. WAGNER,

 Petitioner,

v.

RALPH M. DIAZ,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01782-LJO-JLT

ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO CONSIDER RECENT DECISION

(Doc. 28)

Case 1:12-cv-01782-LJO-JLT Document 30 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Supreme Court. Accordingly, while it is helpful for the parties to point out to the Court cases they 

believe are relevant to a determination of the issues, that should be done either in the briefs themselves 

or in supplemental briefs or citations; it is wholly unnecessary to file motions requesting that the Court 

consider a specific case or cases since the Court independently conducts its own legal research 

regarding each issue in order to determine whether controlling or persuasive precedent exists and 

whether such precedents should be used in crafting a decision on the merits. The Court has an 

extremely heavy habeas caseload and little time to respond to each and every motion filed by 

petitioners citing “new” cases. Petitioner can be assured that the Court will be diligent in conducting 

its legal research and will consider any and all precedent relevant to a determination of the issues in 

his petition.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to consider a recent case (Doc. 28), is DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01782-LJO-JLT Document 30 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 2