Palacios v. Benov

Filing 20

ORDER Granting Respondent Twenty (20) Days in Which to Submit Materials in Support of the Motion to Dismiss 19 ; ORDER Extending the Deadline for Petitioner to File Opposition or Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss until Thirty (30) Days after Respondent Submits Materials in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/6/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12

Case No. 1:13-cv-01531-LJO-BAM-HC

JAIME PALACIOS,
Petitioner,
v.

13
14
15

MICHAEL L. BENOV,
Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT TWENTY
(20) DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT
MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
TO DISMISS (DOC. 19)
ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR
PETITIONER TO FILE OPPOSITION OR
NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION TO DISMISS UNTIL THIRTY (30)
DAYS AFTER RESPONDENT SUBMITS
MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
TO DISMISS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.
Pending before the Court is the Respondent’s motion to dismiss
the petition as moot, which was filed on March 3, 2014.

petition raises claims concerning the disciplinary authority of a
disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) who is not an employee of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Respondent asserts that claims

27
28

The

1

1 concerning the disciplinary charges and sanctions that were the
2
subject of the petition have been rendered moot because the charges
3
have been considered by a DHO who is a BOP employee and who imposed
4 independent sanctions. However, Respondent did not submit any
5

evidentiary matter that would tend to establish the facts relating

6 to the asserted rehearing process that would constitute the basis
7
for the request for relief in the form of dismissal of the petition.
8
A court has inherent power to control its docket and the
9 disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both
10
the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.
11 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th
12

Cir. 1992).

In the interest of the efficient administration of

13 justice, the Court exercises its discretion to permit Respondent to
14
supplement the motion with appropriate documentation and evidentiary
15
materials to support the motion for dismissal.
16
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Respondent may SUBMIT materials
17

in support of the motion to dismiss no later than twenty (20) days

18 after the date of service of this order.
19
The time for Petitioner to file opposition or non-opposition to
20 the motion to dismiss is EXTENDED to no later than thirty (30) days
21
after the date on which Respondent submits to the Court materials in
22
support of the motion.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: March 6, 2014
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
_
25
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28

2