Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00295/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00295-0/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

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

JOHN GRESCHNER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-00295-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR DECISION ON THE MERITS (Doc. 3)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On March 16, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno

Division. (Doc. 1.) On December 26, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Decision on

the Merits (Doc. 3), in which Petitioner appears to request that the Court rule on his petition in an

expedited manner. Therefore, the Court will construe the motion as a Motion to Expedite, and,

in so construing said motion, deny it. 

The Court does not have a separate “expedited” calendar. The Court understands

Petitioner’s need and desire to have his case heard quickly as he believes that relief is warranted. 

However, the Court has pending before it at any given time hundreds of habeas cases wherein

each prisoner alleges that relief is warranted and warranted immediately. Case management at

the court proceeds by the order cases are received. Due to the high volume of such cases and the

Court’s diligent handling of each case, a court decision often takes time. Petitioner can rest

Case 1:06-cv-00295-CW Document 5 Filed 08/09/07 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

assured that the Court acts to resolve all pending cases in the most efficient manner possible. 

Petitioner may also rest assured that his case will be reviewed in the order in which it was

received and that no other cases will be given priority over his, once his case is ready for review. 

In this particular case, the Court has yet even to conduct its preliminary screening of the

petition for jurisdictional purposes, nor has Respondent even entered an appearance in the case or

filed a response to the petition. It would be wholly inappropriate to proceed to the merits of the

petition at this early stage.

Petitioner’s case will be heard in due course. Accordingly, his Motion for Order of

Court’s Disposition (Doc. 3), is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00295-CW Document 5 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 2