From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bryant v. Unknown

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 11, 2013
2:13-cv-1750 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2013)

Opinion


TOM BRYANT, Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent. No. 2:13-cv-1750 GGH P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 11, 2013

          ORDER

          GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file his habeas petition. As this court explained in its previous order, in order to commence an action, petitioner must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus as required by Rule 3 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, and petitioner must either pay the required filing fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The court will not issue any orders granting or denying relief until an action has been properly commenced. Therefore, petitioner's motion will be denied. See McDade v. Warden, 2010 WL 4795377 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Soto v. Warden, 2009 WL 1705471 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to file his petition, and to submit an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the appropriate filing fee.

         Petitioner states that he needs an extension in order to complete the exhaustion process, and that he is in the final stage with a filing currently before the state supreme court. Petitioner is cautioned that if he files an unexhausted petition in this court, it will be dismissed. Petitioner is also advised that assuming he has timely filed his state petitions, and other prerequisites are met, pending habeas filings in state court themselves toll the federal AEDPA limitations time period thereby obviating the need for an extension of time to file a federal petition. Petitioner should file his federal petition as quickly as possible after the ruling of the state supreme court in order not to exceed the AEDPA limitations period.

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 4) is denied.


Summaries of

Bryant v. Unknown

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 11, 2013
2:13-cv-1750 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2013)
Case details for

Bryant v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:TOM BRYANT, Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 11, 2013

Citations

2:13-cv-1750 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2013)