Smith v. Moss

Filing 28

ORDER Regarding Petitioner's 27 Request for Disposition, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/23/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM ALLEN SMITH,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-01696-LJO-SKO HC
ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST FOR DISPOSITION

v.
STUART SHERMAN, Warden,
(Doc. 27)

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, William Allen Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ

18

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for prompt disposition of the above-

19

captioned case in accordance with Habeas Rule 4. Petitioner contends that disposition of his

20

petition is necessary because California Proposition 57 has shortened Petitioner’s sentence.

21

Petitioner believes that a grant of his petition will further shorten his remaining prison term.

22
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
23
24
25
26
27
28

provides:
The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the
court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly
examine it. If it plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and
direct the clerk to notify the petitioner, If the petition is not
dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an answer,
1

1

motion, or other response, within a fixed time, or to take other
action the judge may order. In every case, the clerk must serve a
copy of the petition and any order on the respondent and on the
attorney general or other appropriate officer of the state involved.

2
3
4
5
6

The petition in the above-captioned case was filed on November 9, 2015. On November
10, 2015, the Court reviewed the petition and issued a screening order directing Respondent to
respond. Respondent filed an answer on March 9, 2016, and Petitioner filed a reply (traverse) on
April 25, 2016. Accordingly, the Court has fully complied with the requirements of Rule 4.

7
8
9
10
11
12

By definition, each habeas petition seeks to reduce the remaining sentence of the
petitioner who filed it. Every petitioner expects that the Court will address his or her claims as
expediently as possible. The Court’s limited resources govern the speed with which the Court
may address each of the many habeas petitions pending before it. In general, the Court addresses
completely briefed cases such as Petitioner’s in the order in which they were filed. The petition
in the above-captioned case will be addressed in due course.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 23, 2017

/s/

16

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.