(HC) Leavy v. Warden

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARNELL A. LEAVY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00915-KES-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 13 v. CONSTRUED MOTION FOR REVIEW OF PETITION TO THE LIMITED EXTENT SET WARDEN, FORTH HEREIN 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 18) 17 Before the Court is Petitioner’s “motion to grant habeas corpus relief.” (Doc. No. 18).

18 Petitioner Carnell A. Leavy, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). The Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to liberally construe the “inartful pleading[s]” of pro se litigants. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). Thus, the Court construes Petitioner’s request as a motion for a ruling on his Petition.

23 The Court has the discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 24 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). And while the Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as possible, this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” See Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of California.

27 Accordingly, Petitioner is advised that the Court will issue findings and recommendations regarding his Petition in due course. Therefore, Petitioner’s construed motion for a ruling (Doc.

1 | No. 18) is granted to the extent that the Court will consider and review this matter as quickly as | its caseload permits.

3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 Petitioner’s MOTION for review of the petition (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED to the | limited extent that the Court will review this case as expeditiously as possible in light of its | current caseload.

8 Dated: _ September 19, 2024 Coo. Zh. Bareh Hack 9 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE