Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00798/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00798-0/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

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

WILLIE GEORGE ERWIN, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

 )

1:05-cv-00798-OWW-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR ISSUANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS

ORDERS

(Doc. 9)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 17, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition in this Court. (Doc. 1). On October 26, 2005,

Petitioner filed the instant motion a motion requesting that the Court issue an order that Respondent

comply with certain Local Rules of Court, that Respondent serve and file a Return to the Petition,

that certain procedures be specified by which the parties may file motions for extensions of time, that

the case will be deemed submitted without oral argument upon the filing of the Traverse or the day

Respondent’s Reply is filed, and that said Order would be served on Respondent. (Doc. 9). 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court

will order Respondent to respond to the Petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Case 1:05-cv-00798-OWW -JMD Document 10 Filed 09/07/06 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

Here, due to the size of the Court’s docket, the Court has not yet conducted its preliminary

review of the Petition. Accordingly, it is premature to issue any orders regarding actions that parties

will or will not be required to make during the course of these proceedings. However, once the

Court has conducted its preliminary screening of this Petition, the Court will enter such orders as are

appropriate under the circumstances of this case, and as provided by federal law and the Local Rules

of the Eastern District of California. 

Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s Motion for issuance of

miscellaneous orders (Doc. 9), is DENIED without prejudice, as premature. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00798-OWW -JMD Document 10 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2