(HC) Yocom v. Allison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM, Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF PETITION 13 v. (Doc. No. 57) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 15 Respondent. FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 16 (Doc. No. 57) 17 18 19 Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the Court is 21 Petitioner’s motion for review of his case and for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 57). 22 A. Motion for Review of Petition 23 Petitioner moves the Court to review the case files and briefing documents. (Doc. No. 24 57). The Court has the discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 25 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). And while the Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as 26 possible, this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” See 27 Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of California 28 1 | Accordingly, the Petitioner is advised that the Court will issue findings and recommendations 2 | regarding his petition in due course. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for review is granted to the 3 | extent that the Court will consider and review this matter as quickly as its caseload permits. 4 B. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 5 Petitioner seeks an “in person” evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 57). Evidentiary hearings 6 | are granted only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 7 | 2254(e)(2)(A)Gi). Although Respondent has filed an answer to the petition, the Court has not yet 8 || reviewed the briefing. The Court will review the briefing and make findings and 9 | recommendations in due course. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, 10 } it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 12 1. Petitioner’s motion for review of the petition (Doc. No. 57) is GRANTED to the 13 limited extent that the Court will review this case as expeditiously as possible in light 14 of its current caseload. 15 2. Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 57) is DENIED without 16 prejudice. 17 | Dated: _ January 4, 2022 Mihaw. □□ fares Zackte 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28