Opinion
20-CV-6320 (CM)
08-26-2020
CARLOS SERRANO, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
ORDER :
Petitioner, appearing pro se, submitted a letter to this Court, seeking a one-year extension of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his conviction. See Serrano v. Supt., ECF 1:20-CV-6320, 1 (S.D.N.Y.) ("Serrano I"). The letter, which was received on August 11, 2020, was opened as a new civil action. (See id.)
On August 18, 2020, Petitioner submitted a partially completed petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); he also requested an extension of time to pursue his federal habeas claims. See Serrano v. Royce, ECF 1:20-CV-6660, 2 (S.D.N.Y.) ("Serrano II").
Because Petitioner has filed a petition and an IFP application in Serrano II, and no useful purpose would be served by litigating Serrano I, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to administratively close Serrano I, without prejudice to Petitioner's litigation of Serrano II.
The Court notes that in this action, it lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioner's request for an extension of time because a petition has not been filed. See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2001); see, e.g., Alvarez v. Doe, No. 19-CV-9003, 2019 WL 5205595, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2019) ("Because Petitioner has not yet filed any petition[] under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant his request."). --------
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service on the docket.
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to administratively close this action, without prejudice to Serrano v. Royce, ECF 1:20-CV-6660, 2.
Because the current petition makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2020
New York, New York
/s/_________
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge