Marcos Antonio Lomeli v. The People of the State of California

Filing 3


Download PDF
O 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS ANTONIO LOMELI, 12 13 Petitioner, v. 14 15 16 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. CV 17-03286 CAS (AFM) ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO INITIATE “NOTICE OF APPEALS” AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING MATTER Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is a detainee incarcerated at the Port Isabel Detention Center in Los 19 Fresnos, Texas. According to his previous actions in this Court, petitioner is in 20 federal detention pending his removal from the United States as an alien convicted 21 of an aggravated felony. See, e.g., Lomeli v. Gurule, CV 16-01714 RSWL (AFM). 22 On May 2, 2017, petitioner filed a document entitled “Notice of Appeals of 23 California Supreme Court Decision.” According to an attachment, the decision 24 petitioner is seeking to challenge is the California Supreme Court’s denial of a 25 petition for review on April 12, 2017. 26 Supreme Court’s decision is entirely unclear. Petitioner has not specified what his 27 claims were in the California Supreme Court, nor has he attached the actual petition 28 for review or any other supporting documentation. Instead, petitioner states that he However, the basis for the California 1 is “not sure if [this action] is supposed to be filed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas 2 Corpus” and requests that the Court file it as such “if it’s supposed to be a Writ of 3 Habeas Corpus.” 4 Petitioner’s request must be denied for lack of jurisdiction. There are no 5 adverse parties before the Court, and there is no concrete dispute for this Court to 6 decide. Petitioner has not filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that specifies 7 what his claims are. 8 opinion regarding whether he should file a habeas petition in this Court to raise 9 unspecified claims challenging an unspecified action in the California Supreme 10 Court. Thus, petitioner’s request seeks relief that the Court could not grant without 11 violating the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the 12 United States Constitution. See, e.g., Thomas v. Ochoa, 2013 WL 610772 (C.D. 13 Cal. Feb. 15, 2013) (“Because petitioner has not yet filed a habeas corpus petition, 14 there is no action or proceeding pending and no case or controversy to be heard.”); 15 In re Ortiz, 2010 WL 1170484 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2010); Corcoran v. Tilton, 2008 16 WL 816682 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2008); Smith v. State, 2007 WL 2398822 (N.D. 17 Tex. Aug. 16, 2007); In re Brockett, 2006 WL 1329675 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006); 18 Flores v. California, 2002 WL 1226853 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2002); In re Burgess, 19 2001 WL 603609 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2001); Wawak v. Johnson, 2001 WL 194974, 20 adopted, 2001 WL 290526 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2001). 21 22 Instead, petitioner appears to be requesting an advisory IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s request to initiate a “Notice of Appeals” is denied and that this matter is administratively closed. 23 24 DATED: May 10, 2017 25 26 27 CHRISTINA A. SNYDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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?