Banark v. Adams et al

Filing 84

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 80 , 81 , 83 the motions for hearing and expedited decision are DENIED. The court will address Banarks petition in due course. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Lonnie Lee Banark, 4 Case No. 2:16-cv-001948-JAD-PAL Petitioner v. 5 Order Denying Motions Warden Adams, 6 [ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83] Respondent 7 8 Lonnie Lee Banark brings this habeas petition to challenge his 2014 state-court 9 10 conviction for driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of 11 intoxicating liquor. 1 Merits briefing is complete, and Banark has filed a handful of motions 12 asking the court to hold a hearing on his petition and issue a decision. 2 The court is fully aware of Banark’s case and its status. But Banark’s petition is just one 13 14 of hundreds of habeas petitions pending in this district, and merits decisions on habeas petitions 15 are highly involved, time-consuming projects that demand a significant amount of the court’s 16 time. Banark is advised that his petition is in line for decision and that the court will issue that 17 decision as soon as possible, but Banark has presented no grounds for expedited treatment of his 18 case. And, if the court determines when evaluating Banark’s petition that a hearing is necessary, 19 it will order one at that time. 20 21 22 23 1 ECF No. 34. 2 ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions for hearing and expedited 2 decision [ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83] are DENIED. The court will address Banark’s petition in due 3 course. 4 Dated: April 23, 2019 5 _________________________________ _________ ______ _ ___ __ _ ____ U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey Judge Jennifer A. D dg dg f 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?