Henderson v. Dae Henderson Jr Trust

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 2 Motion to Post Security for Fees and Costs and ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 13 Motion to Take Judicial Notice signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/27/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAE HENDERSON, JR.,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

HUNTER ANGLEA, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16

18

20

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO POST SECURITY FOR FEES AND
COSTS
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
(Docs. 2, 13)

17

19

No. 1:18-cv-00143-AWI-SKO HC

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 26, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Notice of
motion to post security fees and costs; affidavit in support thereof; complaint; documentation in

21
22
23

support thereof [FRCP 9(h); supplemental admiralty and maritime claims Rule(s) C(1)(a);
C(2)(a)-(c); C(3)(a(i); C(3)(b)(ii); E(2)(a)(b) 28 U.S.C.A.].” In the motion, Petitioner requests

24

“an order permitting that all fees and costs . . . with the filing . . . be charged to the order of the

25

Defendant.” The Court granted Petitioner in forma pauperis status on February 5, 2018; therefore

26

Petitioner’s motion is moot.

27

//

28
1

On February 28, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Motion that Court take judicial

1
2

notice; and request for opportunity to be heard [Fed. Rules of Evid. 201].” This motion to take

3

judicial notice was filed in conjunction with Petitioner’s first amended complaint. The Court

4
dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend on February 28, 2018. Subsequently,
5
6

on March 12, 2018, Petitioner filed his second amended complaint. Because the motion to take

7

judicial notice relates to the first amended complaint, which was dismissed, the Court will deny

8

this motion as moot.

9
10
11
12
13
14

To the extent Petitioner is requesting an evidentiary hearing; a court has inherent power to
control its docket and the disposition of cases with economy of time and effort for both the court
and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 251-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Petitioner’s motion is most efficiently considered when the
Court begins its review of the record and consideration of the petition. Because of the large

15

volume of habeas petitions and limited Court resources, the petition in this case will be addressed

16

in due course.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:

March 27, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.