Corrales v. Arizona, State of

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 "Motion for Clarification to File Writ of Habeas Corpus" The Clerk of Court must enter dismissal of this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/13/11. (Attachments: # 1 ifp-habeas, # 2 habeas form)(DMT)

Download PDF
1 SC WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Louis Ernesto Corrales, 9 Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 State of Arizona, 12 Respondent. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-1374-PHX-GMS (LOA) ORDER 14 Petitioner Louis Ernesto Corrales, who is imprisoned in the Special Management Unit 15 II, Browning Unit, of the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro 16 se “Motion for Clarification to File Writ of Habeas Corpus” with respect to his state 17 conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.)1 The Clerk of Court opened a civil case 18 to facilitate consideration of Petitioner’s motion, although Petitioner has not filed a habeas 19 corpus petition or paid the $5.00 filing fee. 20 case without prejudice. The Court will deny the motion and dismiss this 21 To invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, a litigant must satisfy the threshold 22 requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by presenting a live case or controversy. 23 See e.g., Jackson v. California Dep’t of Mental Health, 399 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2005) 24 (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)). 25 requirement for purposes of federal habeas corpus, a prisoner must file a petition for habeas 26 27 1 28 “Doc.” refers to the docket number of filings in this case. To satisfy the case or controversy 1 relief in which he alleges facts to support that he is “a person in custody pursuant to the 2 judgment of a State court . . . in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 3 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) (state prisoners’ 4 attempt to litigate affirmative statute of limitation defense before filing actual habeas corpus 5 petitions held not a justiciable controversy); United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 6 2000) (a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2255 petition until 7 a petition is actually filed). 8 relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; (3) state the relief 9 requested; (4) be printed, typewritten or legibly handwritten; and (5) be signed under penalty 10 of perjury by the petitioner . . . .” Rule 2(c), foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (a 11 petition for a writ of habeas corpus “shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s 12 commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of 13 what claim or authority, if known ....”). 14 respondent the state officer having custody of him. Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354 (9th Cir. 15 2004) (citing Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)). Further, 16 in this District, a petitioner typically also names the Arizona Attorney General as a respondent. 17 See Belgarde v. State of Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 1997). 18 Further, a habeas petition must “(1) specify all the grounds for A petitioner for habeas relief must also name as a Petitioner’s motion does not satisfy the case or controversy requirement. The motion 19 does not, for example, specify any grounds for habeas corpus relief, set forth any facts 20 supporting any grounds for habeas relief, or provide any information about the conviction for 21 which Petitioner seeks habeas relief, such as the crime(s) with which he was convicted. 22 Instead, Petitioner appears to seek a determination concerning the timeliness of a petition for 23 habeas relief, which has not yet been filed. 24 improper unless and until a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed.2 Such determination would be advisory and 25 26 27 28 2 The one-year statute of limitation to file a federal habeas petition runs from the latter of “the date on which the [state court] judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), excluding -2- 1 In short, Petitioner must file a habeas petition setting forth his claims to satisfy the case or 2 controversy requirement. 3 Petitioner’s motion will be denied and this action dismissed without prejudice to 4 Petitioner commencing a new case by filing a habeas petition with the $5.00 filing fee or an 5 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Under this Court’s local rule, a habeas petitioner 6 must use the court-approved form when he files a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 7 see LRCiv 3.5(a), and he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an Application to 8 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914. 9 provide Petitioner with the court-approved forms for filing a habeas petition and an application 10 The Clerk of Court will be ordered to to proceed without payment of the filing fee in a new action. 11 IT IS ORDERED: 12 (1) 13 denied. (Doc. 1.) 14 (2) The Clerk of Court must enter dismissal of this action without prejudice. 15 (3) The Clerk of Court must provide Petitioner with the current court-approved 16 17 Petitioner’s “Motion for Clarification to File Writ of Habeas Corpus” is forms for filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and for seeking habeas relief. DATED this 13th day of July, 2011. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 206-207 (2003); Isley v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., 383 F.3d 1054, 1055 (2004). In limited circumstances, a petitioner may also be able to establish grounds for tolling the statute of limitations. -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?