Banark v. Adams, 2:16-cv-001948-JAD-PAL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190425c61
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2019
Summary: Order Denying Motions [ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Lonnie Lee Banark brings this habeas petition to challenge his 2014 state-court conviction for driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 1 Merits briefing is complete, and Banark has filed a handful of motions asking the court to hold a hearing on his petition and issue a decision. 2 The court is fully aware of Banark's case and its status. But Banark's pe
Summary: Order Denying Motions [ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Lonnie Lee Banark brings this habeas petition to challenge his 2014 state-court conviction for driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 1 Merits briefing is complete, and Banark has filed a handful of motions asking the court to hold a hearing on his petition and issue a decision. 2 The court is fully aware of Banark's case and its status. But Banark's pet..
More
Order Denying Motions
[ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
Lonnie Lee Banark brings this habeas petition to challenge his 2014 state-court conviction for driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.1Merits briefing is complete, and Banark has filed a handful of motions asking the court to hold a hearing on his petition and issue a decision.2
The court is fully aware of Banark's case and its status. But Banark's petition is just one of hundreds of habeas petitions pending in this district, and merits decisions on habeas petitions are highly involved, time-consuming projects that demand a significant amount of the court's time. Banark is advised that his petition is in line for decision and that the court will issue that decision as soon as possible, but Banark has presented no grounds for expedited treatment of his case. And, if the court determines when evaluating Banark's petition that a hearing is necessary, it will order one at that time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions for hearing and expedited decision [ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83] are DENIED. The court will address Banark's petition in due course.
FootNotes
1. ECF No. 34.
2. ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83.
Source: Leagle
