Rodriguez v. Soto

Filing 25

ORDER Deferring Consideration of Petitioner's 23 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/18/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOSE RODRIGUEZ,

5

Petitioner,

6
7
8

v.

(Doc. 23)
Respondent.

10

12

ORDER DEFERRING CONSIDERATION
OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, R.J.
Donovan Correctional Facility,

9

11

No. 1:15-cv-01896-LJO-SKO HC

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for an evidentiary hearing on his claims. Respondent has
not filed opposition or consent to the motion. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate

13
14

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.
A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of cases with economy

15
16

of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,

17

251-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Petitioner’s motion is

18

most efficiently considered when the Court begins its review of the record and consideration of

19

the petition. Because of the large volume of habeas petitions and limited Court resources, the

20
petition in this case will be addressed in due course.
21
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that consideration of Petitioner’s motion for

22
23

evidentiary hearing is DEFERRED until the Court considers the merits of the petition.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated:

July 18, 2016

/s/

27

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
1

.