Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01896-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Paramo
Respondent
Jose Rodriguez
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

JOSE RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, R.J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-01896-LJO-SKO HC

ORDER DEFERRING CONSIDERATION 

OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. 23)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for an evidentiary hearing on his claims. Respondent has 

not filed opposition or consent to the motion. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of cases with economy 

of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 

251-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Petitioner’s motion is 

most efficiently considered when the Court begins its review of the record and consideration of 

the petition. Because of the large volume of habeas petitions and limited Court resources, the 

petition in this case will be addressed in due course.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that consideration of Petitioner’s motion for 

evidentiary hearing is DEFERRED until the Court considers the merits of the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01896-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 1