Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00073/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00073-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Percy Adams
Petitioner
Bernie Ellis
Respondent

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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY ADAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

BERNIE ELLIS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05 0073 REC LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY PETITIONER’S HABEAS

CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 

[Doc. #16]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On July 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the Court issue an order directing

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted and Petitioner immediately be

placed into an RDAP program. Petitioner argues that unless he is immediately enrolled in an RDAP

program, he will not benefit fully from the one-year deduction in his sentence upon completion of

that program.

Petitioner’s request must be denied. Respondent has already filed an answer addressing the

merits of the petition. Requiring Respondent to submit further briefing would not achieve anything

except to prolong a decision in this matter. Briefing has concluded and the case is awaiting a

decision by the Court. The Court is well aware of Petitioner’s time concerns; however, the Court’s

docket of pending cases is substantial, and the Court must act first on those matters that have been

pending the longest. 

Case 1:05-cv-00073-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 07/22/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

Petitioner further argues that Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.2000) compels the Court to

issue an order to show cause. The Court does not so find. In Yong, the Ninth Circuit held that the

District Court abused its discretion to stay proceedings since considerations of judicial economy

could not justify indefinite and potentially lengthy stay. Id. at 1120-21. Here, the proceedings have

not been stayed. Thus, Yong does not apply.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for an order directing Respondent to show cause is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00073-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2