From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Quarterman

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Sep 27, 2007
Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0708-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0708-L.

September 27, 2007


ORDER


Before the court are the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, entered August 20, 2007. No objections to the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions were filed.

Miller filed a Rhines-v.-Weber Motion to Stop AEDPA One-Year Time Clock on April 23, 2007. Magistrate Judge Wm. F. Sanderson, Jr. found that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because though the motion anticipates filing a petition of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC § 2254, no petition has yet been filed. The magistrate judge found Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), distinguishable and determined that the court could not construe the motion as a habeas petition. Because Miller has not filed a habeas petition, the magistrate judge concluded that there is no case or controversy pending before the court.

Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions are correct. The magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are therefore accepted as those of the court. The court therefore denies without prejudice Miller's Rhines-v.-Weber Motion to Stop AEDPA One-Year Time Clock for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Miller v. Quarterman

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Sep 27, 2007
Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0708-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2007)
Case details for

Miller v. Quarterman

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY MILLER, #1362672, Petitioner, v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Sep 27, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0708-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2007)

Citing Cases

Winzer v. Vannoy

Here, because Petitioner's alleged "shell petition" was not a petition at all and thus did not present a case…

Lewis v. Goodwin

Here, because Petitioner's motion was not a petition and did not present a case or controversy, it did not…