(HC) Peterson v. Diaz

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD ANTHONY PETERSON, No. 2:19-cv-01480 WBS GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER RALPH DIAZ, 15 Respondent.

18 On March 25, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for immediate release based solely on the existence of the present COVID-19 medical crisis in light of his possibly immune compromised system, and the prospect of release in mid-April 2020.1 ECF No. 26. Respondent shall file a response to this motion no later than 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 1, 2020. The undersigned recognizes that this is a short response time in the present conditions, but nevertheless, the purpose of the motion may be mooted unless resolved expeditiously. No extensions of time will be granted.

25 The undersigned is interested in whether such a motion is appropriate in habeas corpus at the district court level prior to any ruling on the merits, and absent the traditional focus on the merits of the claims. See e.g., Hall v. San Francisco Superior Court, No. C 09-5299 PJH, 2010 28 1 It may be that petitioner believes his petition briefing suffices for a discussion on the merits. 1 WL 890044 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) and cases cited therein; Kerestesy v. Californa, No. 2:15- cv-0545 MCE AC P, 2017 WL 735736 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017). If the answer is in the affirmative, the issue becomes whether petitioner qualifies for such relief.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: March 27, 2020 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE