Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00901/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00901-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Spencer E. Berry
Petitioner
McDonald
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), the parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

May 31, 2012, and on behalf of Respondent on September 26, 2012.

Pending before the Court is the Petitioner’s motion for a 

ruling on his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his motion, 

which was filed on July 26, 2013, Petitioner notes that Respondent 

SPENCER E. BERRY,

 Petitioner,

v.

McDONALD,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00901-BAM-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR A RULING (DOC. 25)

Case 1:12-cv-00901-BAM Document 26 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 2
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

filed an amended answer on October 4, 2012, and Petitioner filed a 

traverse on October 26, 2012. Petitioner thus requests a ruling on 

his petition.

The Court does not have a separate expedited calendar. The 

Court understands Petitioner’s need and desire to have his case 

heard quickly as he believes that relief is warranted. However, the 

Court has pending before it at any given time hundreds of habeas 

cases wherein each prisoner alleges that relief is warranted. Case 

management at the court proceeds in the order cases are received. 

Due to the high volume of such cases and the Court’s diligent 

handling of each case, a court decision often takes time. 

Petitioner can rest assured that the Court acts to resolve all 

pending cases in the most efficient manner possible. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s case will be heard in due course, and 

the motion for a ruling is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00901-BAM Document 26 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 2