Delfin v. Fhuere

Filing 92

ORDER: Petitioner's Motions ( 72 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , & 91 ) are denied. Briefing is now CLOSED for this case and the Court will not accept any further motions for filing. Signed on 1/6/2025 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 1/6/2025.) (dsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JORGE DELFIN,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 6:24-cv-00706-SI
ORDER

COREY FHUERE,
Respondent.
SIMON, District Judge.
Petitioner’s Motion to Consider Consent (#72) and Motion on Jurisdiction of Magistrate
(#86) are denied insofar as all parties must consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and all
parties have not so consented.
Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#74) is denied on the basis that it is not
contemplated by the Court’s Scheduling Order (#6).
Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for the Department of Justice (#75) is denied
as frivolous.
Petitioner’s Motion to Determine Case (#76) is denied as unnecessary. The Court will
consider the claims he raises in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) and the arguments he
makes in his Supporting Memorandum (#82) as contemplated by the Scheduling Order (#6).
1 - ORDER

Petitioner’s Motions for Recusal (#77 & #87) are denied for the reasons given in prior
Orders (#20, #55, #84).
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief (#78) is denied because parties to a
case do not file amicus briefs.
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Brief (#80) is denied because he seeks to file a brief
in support of a summary judgment motion that has already been denied.
Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#81) is
denied on the basis that the Respondent’s Response (#29) was properly filed in accordance with
the Scheduling Order (#6).
Petitioner’s Motion for a Rule 11 Sanction (#85) is denied as unwarranted.
Petitioner’s Motion on Jurisdiction of Magistrate (#86) is denied for reasons identified
above.
Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (#88) is denied on the basis that the Court
has not entered judgment in this case.
Petitioner’s Motion on Request for Certificate of Appealability (#89) is denied as
premature. The Court will consider the issue of a certificate of appealability when it rules on the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1).
Petitioner’s Motion on Summary Judgment (#90) is denied because, as the Court has
previously ruled, summary judgment is not appropriate in this case given the Scheduling Order
(#6). Petitioner has also not shown a sufficient basis for summary judgment in this case.
Petitioner’s Motion for Federal Witness Protection Security (#91) is denied.
///
2 - ORDER

CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s Motions (#72, #74, #75, #76, #77, #78, #80, #81, #85, #86, #87, #88, #89,
#90, & #91) are denied. Briefing is now CLOSED for this case and the Court will not accept any
further motions for filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 6, 2025
DATE

3 - ORDER

Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge