Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00022/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00022-0/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

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 federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

January 24, 2014, and on behalf of Respondent on January 23, 2014.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for summary 

judgment, which was filed on January 28, 2014.

This Court has the inherent power to control its docket and the 

RODNEY BUTLER,

 Petitioner,

v.

AUDREY GILL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00022-BAM-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 11)

Case 1:14-cv-00022-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/29/14 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

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both 

the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 

248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 

Cir. 1992). In light of all the proceedings in this case, the Court 

exercises its discretion to consider Petitioner’s motion for summary 

judgment without requiring the filing of opposition. 

Petitioner’s motion is premised upon what Petitioner asserts 

was Respondent’s failure to file a timely response. However, the 

Court’s order to Respondent to file a response within sixty days was 

served on Respondent on January 28, 2014. Respondent has not failed 

to comply with an order of the Court. The petition, which concerns 

a prison disciplinary proceeding, has been pending only since 

January 6, 2014. 

Further, insofar as Petitioner seeks an adjudication of the 

merits of his petition, Petitioner’s motion is premature in view of 

the absence of a response to the petition and a traverse or reply.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00022-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/29/14 Page 2 of 2