(HC) Brown v. Northern Kern State Prison, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING 20 Petitioner's Motion for Review of Petition, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 1/8/2022. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENYON DERRAL BROWN,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,

Case No. 1:21-cv-01061-NONE-HBK
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR REVIEW OF PETITION

v.
(Doc. No. 20)
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON,
DIRECTOR OF CDCR,
Respondent.

17
18
19
20

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pleading docketed by the clerk as a “motion for

21

summary judgment” on October 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 20). Petitioner, who is pro se, has pending

22

a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). In his one-page

23

pleading, Petitioner asks the Court “to make a ruling in the interests of justice” because he

24

believes he has “proved cognizable claims.” (Doc. No. 20 at 1). The Supreme Court has

25

instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the “inartful pleading[s]” of pro se litigants.

26

Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). The Court liberally construes Petitioner’s

27

pleading as a motion for the Court to undertake a review of the petition and respondent’s answer

28

and issue a ruling in this case.

1

Courts exercise discretion in how to manage their own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

2

F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). And while this Court endeavors to handle all matters as

3

expeditiously as possible, this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the

4

nation.” See Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of

5

California. Accordingly, Petitioner is advised that the Court will issue findings and

6

recommendations regarding his petition once it completes review of the record in this case

7

bearing in mind its current docket and other pending matters. Consequently, Petitioner’s motion

8

for review is granted to the extent that the Court will consider and review this matter as quickly as

9

its caseload permits.

10

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

11

Petitioner’s construed motion for review of the petition (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED to

12

the limited extent that the Court will review this case as expeditiously as possible considering its

13

current caseload.

14
15
16

Dated:

January 8, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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