Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00169/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00169-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Defendant
Arnold Trevino
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 Petitioner is advised that future documents filed by himself will be subject to being stricken without order 1

by the Court. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD TREVINO,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00169 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE

[Doc. 9]

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Richard Pfeiffer, Esq. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order of February 12, 2007, Respondent filed an answer to the

petition on May 11, 2007. Petitioner has not filed a traverse. 

On December 12, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance. In his

motion, Petitioner contends that he is currently having trouble communicating with his counsel

of record, and he is unaware of the status of this case. 

First, Petitioner is advised that he may not file documents in this case, pro se, as he is

currently represented by counsel, and any and all documents must be filed by counsel of record.1

Second, Petitioner is advised that the filing of a traverse is optional, and no other documents are

Case 1:07-cv-00169-LJO -DLB Document 10 Filed 01/04/08 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

 Counsel may have chosen not to file a traverse, given that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is 2

accompanied by a lengthy memorandum of points and authorities. 

 Petitioner is advised that the Court’s number of pending cases is substantial, and it must act first on those 3

cases that have been pending the longest. 

2

currently due. As the case stands now, it is ready for review on the merits, and the Court will 2

issue a ruling in due course. Petitioner’s motion for the Court to hold the case in abeyance is 3

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00169-LJO -DLB Document 10 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2