Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00174/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00174-2/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

HENRY SANDOVAL, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

ROXANNE CAMPBELL, et al. )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-00174-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE

(Doc. 19)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STATUS

AND DOCKET CORRECTION (Doc. 19)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed his Petition on January 18, 2005,

with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento,

California. (Doc. 1). The matter was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District on

February 8, 2005. (Doc. 5). On August 11, 2005, Respondent filed an Answer pursuant to an order

of this Court. (Doc. 13). 

On June 13, 2006, the Clerk of the Court erroneously made a docket entry in this case that

should have been docketed in another case. (Doc. 16). That error was corrected immediately on the

same date. (Doc. 17). Petitioner now requests an extension of time to file his Traverse, as well as a

request for docket correction and for an explanation of the status of his case. (Doc. 19). 

Petitioner’s request for docket correction is moot. The docket error was corrected

immediately upon its discovery on June 13, 2006.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00174-AWI -JMD Document 20 Filed 03/30/07 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

Regarding Petitioner’s request for information on the status of his case, case management at

the Court proceeds by the order cases are received. The Court is aware of the existence of

Petitioner’s case and the length of time that it has been pending. However, due to the caseload of the

Court, and the Court’s diligent handling of each individual case, a court decision often takes time. 

Petitioner’s case will be ruled on in due course. 

With respect to Petitioner’s request for a status, as noted in the Litigant Letter served on

Petitioner shortly after the filing of the Petition, the Court will not respond to individual inquires

regarding the status of a case. Petitioner was informed that the Court would notify him as soon as

any action is taken in his case and that as long as Petitioner keeps the Court informed of his current

address, he will receive all decisions that might affect the status of his case. 

Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file his Traverse will be granted despite the

fact that it appears that the primary reason Petitioner is unaware of what has been happening in his

case is because he has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address. If the Court does not

know Petitioner’s current address, it is impossible to keep Petitioner informed of activity in his case.

ORDER 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Request for an Extension of Time to File A Traverse (Doc. 19), is

GRANTED. Petitioner has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to file his Traverse. 

Petitioner’s Requests for Docket Correction and Status (Doc. 19), are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00174-AWI -JMD Document 20 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2