Dean v. McDonald

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 32 Motion Requesting Case Status, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/31/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

) Case No.: 1:11-cv-00970-LJO-JLT
)
) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
) REQUESTING CASE STATUS (Doc. 32)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JERMAINE MICHAEL DEAN,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

M. McDONALD,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The instant petition was filed on June 3, 2011. (Doc. 1). On June 15, 2011, the Court ordered

22

Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 8). On September 13, 2011, Respondent filed his Answer. (Doc.

23

22). On November 14, 2011, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (Doc. 27). The matter was then placed on

24

the Court’s list of cases ready for a decision on the merits. On June 28, 2013, Petitioner filed the

25

instant motion for a copy of the Court’s docket report. (Doc. 32). The motion indicates that Petitioner

26

will be transferred shortly to another facility, that he has not heard from the Court regarding the

27

Findings and Recommendations on the merits of the petition, and that he does not want to miss any

28

deadlines. Given the nature of Petitioner’s allegations, the Court construes the motion as a request for
1

1
2

the status of his case.
Case management at the court proceeds by the order cases are received. The Court is aware of

3

the existence of Petitioner’s case and the length of time that it has been pending on the list of cases

4

ready for a merits decision. However, due to the enormous caseload of the Court, and the Court’s

5

detailed and diligent handling of each individual case, a Court decision often takes time. Petitioner’s

6

case will be ruled on in due course.

7

As noted in the Litigant Letter served on Petitioner shortly after the filing of the Petition, the

8

Court will not respond to individual inquiries regarding the status of a particular case. Petitioner was

9

informed at the outset that the Court would notify him as soon as any action is taken in his case and

10

that as long as Petitioner keeps the Court informed of his current address, he will receive all

11

decisions that might affect the status of his case. Moreover, the Court has no formal procedures for

12

supplying inmates with copies of the Court’s docket. The docket for this case can be viewed on-line at

13

the Court’s main website.

14

Accordingly, the Request for Status is DENIED.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 31, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2