From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chairez v. Adams

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jun 11, 2007
No. C 07-2643 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2007)

Opinion

No. C 07-2643 MMC (PR).

June 11, 2007


ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Docket Nos. 1 3)


The above-titled action was opened on May 17, 2007, when petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion "For Time Extention of Habeas Corpus Petition Under 2254 28 U.S.C.A. Fed. Rule Civil Procedure," in which petitioner seeks to "extend the deadline," imposed by the applicable statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions, with respect to a federal habeas petition he wishes to file in the future.

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution restricts adjudication in federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). In the absence of an actual petition for a writ of habeas corpus or other civil complaint, there is no case or controversy for this Court to adjudicate. See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2001). Although, in some instances, a motion may be construed to be a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see id. at 83-84, petitioner here has not alleged any grounds for such relief, and indeed it is clear that he is not asking for relief from his conviction, but rather from the statute of limitations. Moreover, the Court cannot discern from the instant filing whether petitioner can meet even the most basic requirements for proceeding with a habeas petition in federal court and, in particular, in the Northern District, such as proper jurisdiction and venue. Consequently, the motion will not be construed as a habeas petition.

At such time as he files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner may, of course, raise any applicable grounds for relief from the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner's filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a complaint for other relief.

In light of petitioner's lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket Nos. 1 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Chairez v. Adams

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jun 11, 2007
No. C 07-2643 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2007)
Case details for

Chairez v. Adams

Case Details

Full title:ARTURO CHAIREZ, Petitioner, v. DARREL ADAMS, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jun 11, 2007

Citations

No. C 07-2643 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2007)

Citing Cases

United States v. Ramirez-Verduzco

This is because federal courts lack authority to consider the timeliness of a § 2255 petition until such…

Sisneros v. Biter

The Constitution's "case or controversy" jurisdictional requirement precludes the granting of relief like…