Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01440/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01440-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Lopez
Petitioner
Rafael Zuniga
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 filed this matter on September 23, 2015, in which he challenged the results of a 2013 

disciplinary hearing at which prison officials found that he violated prison rules prohibiting the receipt 

of stolen property. (Doc. 1). Petitioner was sanctioned with the loss of 27 days’ credits. (Id.). 

Two days after he filed his petition, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response within 

sixty days. (Doc. 4). Nevertheless, on November 16, 2015—more than a week before Respondent’s 

response is due—Petitioner filed an emergency motion to expedite proceedings as well as a motion to 

expedite proceedings. (Docs. 10; 11). The “emergency” motion provides no explanation, facts, or 

evidence supporting Petitioner’s request for expediting the proceedings. Indeed, it merely states that 

“any continued incarceration” beyond the date of receipt of his motion, is a violation of Petitioner’s 

rights. The other motion contends that the loss of good time credits was a violation of Petitioner’s due 

process rights and that Petitioner is entitled to an immediate release “pending appeal.” (Doc. 11, p. 3). 

Petitioner makes several legal arguments regarding the need to correct what he perceives as a wrong; 

VICTOR LOPEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

RAFAEL ZUNIGA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01440-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO 

EXPEDITE CASE (Docs. 10; 11)

Case 1:15-cv-01440-JLT Document 12 Filed 11/19/15 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

however, he provides no information, facts, or evidence whatsoever to support either his innocence on 

the prison rules violation or for expediting these proceedings. For example, the Court has no 

information regarding the crime for which Petitioner is incarcerated, the sentence imposed, the current 

expected release date, if any, or any other circumstances that might bear upon whether an expedited 

review of Petitioner’s claims is appropriate.

Presently, as mentioned, the Court is awaiting Respondent’s response to the petition. Once 

that is received and Petitioner has had his opportunity to file a traverse, the Court will review 

Petitioner’s claims in due course. The Eastern District of California is one of the busiest federal courts 

in the United States, with a daunting case load of prisoner cases that far exceeds most other federal 

district courts in this country. In order to handle such a huge volume of cases in an orderly fashion, 

case management at the court proceeds by the order in which cases are received. 

The Court is aware of the existence of Petitioner’s case and the length of time that it has been 

pending. Every petitioner who litigates in this Court believes that his or her petition is the most 

important case and is entitled to expedited review. However, it is simply impossible to afford 

expedited review except in the most unusual and extraordinary cases that present compelling legal and 

factual reasons for special treatment. Petitioner has failed to present any such unusual or extraordinary 

circumstances. Thus, Petitioner’s case will be ruled on in due course. 

Accordingly, the two Requests for Expedited Review (Docs. 10, 11), are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01440-JLT Document 12 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2