Eddie B. Yarbrough , Jr. v. Warden

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell.Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (Attachments: # 1 State Habeas Corpus Packet) (mz)

1

FILED
CLENv: ~.~ [)ISTF!C7 ~'~~URT

-~
I

2

it

}~ JAN 2 6 2017 '~
L.___________...__----_ _~
CENTRAL DISTRICT O~ GAi IFGkIJ~A

3

~

4

eY~ , n

~E~uTv

5
6
7
8
9 ;

l0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ll
12
13

EDDIE YARBROUGH,
Petitioner,

14
15
16
17

Case No. CV 17-425 BRO(MRW)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
DAVID VAUGHN, Warden,
Respondent.

18
19

The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner's defective state habeas action.
~ ~*

20
21

Petitioner, an inmate at the state prison in Sacramento, filed a request for an

~
~~ extension so that he can complete and file a habeas petition challenging his
23

criminal conviction. Attached to his letter were the first and last pages of a form

24

habeas petition. (Docket # 1.)

25

Petitioner does not have an active case on file in this district. Indeed, his

2
6

f
iling is apparently an attempt to extend the deadline to file a future habeas action.

27

This procedure does not comply with the rules of this Court, so Petitioner's action

28

must be dismissed.

E~~3

2

Petitioner has not filed an actual habeas petition, nor has he filed any other

3

materials with this Court in connection with his case. According to the motion, the

4

state supreme court denied review on his appeal in January 2016(confirmed by

5

review ofthe state appellate court system's website). However, Petitioner's

6

submission is not accompanied by any information regarding his criminal case or

7

the claims of error he wishes to assert on habeas review.

8

As a result, Petitioner failed to comply with the Rules Governing Section

9

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 2(d) expressly requires that a

10

state prisoner commence a habeas action by using a standard form prepared by the

11

Court. In our district, prisoners must complete Form CV-69. That form provides

12

the Court with basic information about the petitioner, his conviction, the prior

13

status of his case in state and federal court, and, most importantly, the federal

14

constitutional claims he wishes to pursue here.

15

A state prisoner must begin his case by filing a petition for a writ of habeas

16

corpus. Petitioner's request for an extension to file his federal habeas petition — in

17

the absence of a properly filed petition — is inadequate and premature. If he files

18

an action after the statutory deadline, Petitioner may be entitled to request

19

equitable tolling of the limitations period.' However, at this stage, the Court

2
0

cannot extend the habeas filing period as Petitioner requests.

21
22
23
'
The Court observes that a state prisoner generally has aone-year period after
a conviction becomes final (generally, after the conclusion of all appellate
proceedings)to commence an action for federal habeas review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
25 In California, when a prisoner does not seek certiorari review of a conviction in the
U.S. Supreme Court, a prisoner's conviction generally becomes fina190 days after
2
6 the state supreme court denies a petition for review. Shannon v. Newland,410
F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the state su reme court enie review
27 on January 13, 2016, Petitioner likely has until early ~pri12017 to file a timely
action.
28
24

1

Therefore, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. For Petitioner's

2

convenience, the Clerk is directed to send him another blank Form CV-69 with a

3

copy of this Order.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

~. -~

~
~
i
I`IL i~.~~v/

8
~
9
10
Presented by:
11
12
13
14

HON. MICHAEL R WIENER
L7NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
2
0
21
22
23
24
25
~
~~
27

3

~

~

~

t