Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01210/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01210-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Diaz
Respondent
Marvin Johnson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden, California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01210-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Doc. 41)

For the second time in recent weeks, Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,1 moves the Court to review a specific portion of the 

trial record. See Docs. 34 and 41. The Court considers the motion to be a motion for judicial notice.

Because the Court carefully reviews the record when it considers each petition for habeas 

corpus before it, Petitioner need not move the Court to review the record lodged with the response to 

his habeas petition. Although limited judicial resources result in delays in the resolution of 

proceedings that are not emergent, the Court will address his petition in due course. 

Petitioner has been afforded a fair opportunity to file his petition and traverse. Unless 

Petitioner wishes to alert the Court to a new decision that relates directly to an issue raised in his 

petition, he can best expedite resolution of his petition by refraining from filing redundant and 

unnecessary motions which draw the Court's attention away from its ongoing business.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 42 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 1