Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00966/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00966-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard E. Marks
Petitioner
Jeffrey A. Wrigley
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

RICHARD E. MARKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFFREY A. WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00966-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

SHOW CAUSE MOTION, MOTION

FOR EXPEDITED RULING, and MOTION

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT HAS NOT

ISSUED (Docs. 4, 9, 14) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On August 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a show cause motion, in which

he “demands” that the Court either summarily grant his writ or issue an order that Respondent show

cause why the writ should not be granted. (Doc. 4). On October 4, 2007, after conducting a

preliminary screening of the petition, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 6). On

December 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the Court to grant his petition for writ of

habeas corpus forthwith. (Doc. 9). On January 24, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to show cause,

requesting the Court to “show cause” why a writ of habeas corpus has not been issued. (Doc. 14). 

DISCUSSION

Insofar as Petitioner’s instant motions (Docs. 4, 9, and 14) request that the Court grant his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court construes each of them as a motion to expedite a ruling

on the merits. As Petitioner correctly states, the instant action is pending before this Court. 

However, the Court does not have an expedited calendar. Petitioner is advised that the Court acts to

resolve all pending cases in the most efficient manner possible. The Court is aware of Petitioner’s

Case 1:07-cv-00966-WWS Document 16 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 3
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 (See docket, generally). 1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

pending petition. Nevertheless, the Court’s docket of pending cases is substantial, and the Court

must act first on those matters that have been pending the longest. 

It appears that the delay in this instance may have been occasioned by Petitioner’s filing of

petition for writ of mandate in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and/or an inadvertent

administrative lapse within the Office of the Clerk of the Court. On October 1, 2007, a copy of

Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate was filed in this Court. (Doc. 5). The petition for writ of

mandate was directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and was decided on December 27,

2007, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the petition. (Doc. 12).

A copy of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order denying the petition was filed with this Court on

January 2, 2008. (Doc. 12). Normally, the Clerk’s office serves a copy of this Court’s order

directing the respondent to file a response within sixty days, along with a copy of the petition, when

the order to respond is issued, thus enabling the respondent to enter an appearance and prepare to file

a response. However, it appears that in this instance that did not happen, and Respondent was not 

notified of the Court’s order to respond (Doc. 6) when it was issued, or during the time that

Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate was pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On 1

January 4, 2008, after Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate was decided by the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals, the Clerk of Court served Respondent with the Court’s order to respond (Doc. 6)

and the instant petition (Docs. 10, 11). At that point, the briefing schedule was modified and the

deadlines re-set to reflect that the new date for Respondent to file his response was now sixty days

from January 4, 2008, or March 4, 2008.

To the extent that Petitioner’s three motions actually do request a summary grant of the

instant petition, such a demand is without merit. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) provides that the writ

of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that “the court shall

summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2243. In Townsend v. Sam, 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963), the Court stated as follows:

Case 1:07-cv-00966-WWS Document 16 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 3
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 3

“State prisoners are entitled to relief on federal habeas corpus only upon proving that their detention

violates the fundamental liberties of the person, safeguarded against state action by the Federal

Constitution.” The same is true of federal prisoners. The burden to show that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution of the United States is on Petitioner. An inadvertent administrative

lapse of the Clerk’s office does not relieve Petitioner of this burden of proof. The Court is still

obligated to hear the case on the merits. 

Insofar as Petitioner’s motions request a response from Respondent, each of them is moot. 

The Court has previously ordered Respondent to file an answer to the claims in the instant petition

and a response is expected by March 4, 2008. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following:

1. The show cause motion (Doc. 4), is DENIED;

2. The motion for expedited ruling (Doc. 9) is DENIED; and 

3. The motion to show cause why a writ has not issued (Doc. 14) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00966-WWS Document 16 Filed 02/20/08 Page 3 of 3