(HC) Morales-Ramirez v. Arviza ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEOBARDO MORALES-RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-00711-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 14 M. ARVIZA, (Doc. No. 18) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for miscellaneous relief filed on November 2, 18 2023. (Doc. No. 18, “Motion”). Petitioner requests the Court “to cease granting extensions of 19 time to respondent to file a response.” (Id. at 1). The Court denies the Motion as premature. 20 Leobardo Morales-Ramirez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, is proceeding on his 21 first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 23, 2023. 22 (Doc. No. 4, “Petition”). On May 30, 2023, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to 23 the operative Petition. (Doc. No. 5). As noted by Petitioner, the Court has granted Respondent 24 five extensions of time to file a response after showing good cause for the extension. (Doc. Nos. 25 9, 11, 13, 15, 17). Mostly recently, the Court granted Respondent an extension of time to file a 26 response to the Petition to November 21, 2023, because Respondent still was not in possession of 27 requested documents and information from the Bureau of Prisons to respond to the Petition. 28 (Doc. No. 17). Because there is no pending request for extension of time currently pending, 1 | Petitioner’s request to “cease delay of proceedings” is premature and will be denied. The Court 2 | notes Petitioner’s current stated objection to any further extensions, in the event Respondent files 3 | another motion for extension of time. 4 Nonetheless, the Court has the discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 5 | 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). And while the Court endeavors to handle all matters as 6 || expeditiously as possible, this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the 7 | nation.” See Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of 8 | California. Thus, to the extent Petitioner seeks a ruling in the instant matter, Petitioner is advised 9 | the Court will consider and review the matter as quickly as its caseload permits but only after this 10 || matter is fully ripe for consideration. 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 12 Petitioner’s motion for miscellaneous relief (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED as premature. 13 Dated: _ November 6, 2023 law ZA. foareh Zackte 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28