Miles v. Grounds

1 Citing case

  1. Cuevas v. Chappell

    Case No. 12-cv-01161-YGR (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015)

    Therefore, at that time it was not a "pending" case for habeas corpus relief and it did not toll the limitations period because his initial filing did not constitute a challenge to his conviction. Cf. Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 210 (2003) (request for counsel in capital case is not equivalent to an actual habeas petition for purpose of determining whether AEDPA applies); see also Braggs v. Walker, 2011 WL 2709847, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (although the filing of a letter and request for an extension of time commenced the federal action, the filing did not constitute a "pending" habeas petition, and thus the limitations period was not tolled); Miles v. Grounds, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74712, **10-11 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (petitioner's correspondence with court and motions for extensions of time "cannot be considered petitions for writ of habeas corpus" for purposes of tolling limitations period); Alexander v. Uribe, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97119, **4-5 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (petitioner's motion for extension of time commenced action, but it did not challenge the merits of his conviction, thus district court considered whether action is timely based on date petitioner filed his petition rather than aforementioned motion); Scott v. Swarthout, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95471, *22 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (petitioner's "motion to toll time" did not toll limitations period). Accordingly, the Court considers whether this action is timely based on the date Petitioner filed his petition—on April 25, 2012—rather than on the date he filed his motion for stay and abeyance.