Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR REVIEW OF PETITION

(Doc. No. 57)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. No. 57)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the Court is 

Petitioner’s motion for review of his case and for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 57).

A. Motion for Review of Petition

Petitioner moves the Court to review the case files and briefing documents. (Doc. No. 

57). The Court has the discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1261 (9th Cir. 1992). And while the Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as 

possible, this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” See

Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of California

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 58 Filed 01/04/22 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

Accordingly, the Petitioner is advised that the Court will issue findings and recommendations 

regarding his petition in due course. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for review is granted to the 

extent that the Court will consider and review this matter as quickly as its caseload permits. 

B. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner seeks an “in person” evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 57). Evidentiary hearings 

are granted only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). Although Respondent has filed an answer to the petition, the Court has not yet 

reviewed the briefing. The Court will review the briefing and make findings and 

recommendations in due course. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, 

it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for review of the petition (Doc. No. 57) is GRANTED to the 

limited extent that the Court will review this case as expeditiously as possible in light 

of its current caseload.

2. Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 57) is DENIED without 

prejudice.

Dated: January 4, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 58 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 2