Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01667/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01667-0/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 11, 2012. (Doc. 1). On October 18, 2012, the Court ordered 

Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 5). On December 18, 2012, Respondent filed his Answer. (Doc. 

12). On January 24, 2013, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (Doc. 13). On June 6, 2013, Petitioner filed 

the instant motion, complaining of the Court’s delay in issuing a decision on the merits of his petition,

and requesting either that the Court grant the petition, or summarily deny the petition in order for him 

to file an appeal. (Doc. 16). The Court construes Petitioner’s motion as a request for the status of his 

case or, alternatively, for an expedited decision. 

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 

ROBERT CUEVAS,

 Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIBSON, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01667-AWI-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

REQUESTING CASE STATUS OR TO EXPEDITE 

DECISION (Doc. 16)

Case 1:12-cv-01667-AWI-JLT Document 17 Filed 06/13/13 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

enormous caseload of the Court, and the Court’s detailed and 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 report on his case, as noted in the Litigant 

Letter served on Petitioner shortly after the filing of the Petition, the Court will not respond to 

individual inquiries regarding the status of a particular case. Petitioner was informed at the outset 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. 

As a courtesy, Petitioner is further advised that he may only appeal a final decision of this 

Court to the Ninth Circuit. No final order has been issued. Should Petitioner file a notice of appeal 

from any non-final decision of this Court, this Court will immediately be divested of jurisdiction to 

proceed to the merits of the case until the Ninth Circuit determines that Petitioner’s appeal is from a 

non-final order and dismisses it. Based upon prior experience, that process often takes many months 

or, in some cases, years. 

Accordingly, the Requests for Expedient Resolution and/or Status (Doc. 16), are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01667-AWI-JLT Document 17 Filed 06/13/13 Page 2 of 2