(HC) Yocom v. Allison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM, Case No. 1:21-cv-00187 JLT HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. INTERVENE (Doc. 74) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY 15 Respondent. INJUNCTION (Doc. 75) 16 17 Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner seeks to have “the District Judge 19 … control of the case, and conduct an immediate teleconference” to establish the rights of the 20 parties. (Doc. 74.) In addition, Petitioner requests that District Judge “take immediate action” as 21 the matter has been pending 17 months and “order a preliminary injunction.” (Doc. 75.) 22 As an initial matter, Petitioner is informed that a motion for preliminary injunction is not 23 the proper mechanism for the relief requested. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to 24 preserve the status quo of the parties, if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party 25 that justice requires the Court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits are ultimately 26 determined. See University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Toward that end, 27 the Court declines any injunctive relief that directs the assigned magistrate judge to take 28 immediate action in addressing the pending petition. 1 The Court notes that Petitioner was previously informed a teleconference and evidentiary 2 | hearing with the undersigned is not necessary or appropriate at this juncture. (See Doc. 71.) 3 | Evidentiary hearings are granted only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. See 28 4 | U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)Gi). Petitioner again fails to show either a teleconference or evidentiary 5 | hearing is necessary. However, if the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, 6 | it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 7 Although Petitioner complains of the 17 months his petition has been pending resolution, 8 | this Court is one of the busiest in the entire country. The limited resources of the Court are 9 | further stretched when addressing repetitive motions, such as those filed in this action. The Court 10 || will review the petition and related briefs—and make findings and recommendations related to 11 | the pending Petition—as soon as is practicable given the heavy workloads faced by both the 12 | magistrate judges and district judges in this district. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. Petitioner’s motion for the District Judge to intervene (Doc. 74) is DENIED. 14 2. Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 75) is DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _September 28, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28