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

Filing 3

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO INITIATE "NOTICE OF APPEALS" 1 AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING MATTER by Judge Christina A. Snyder. (See document for details). (ib)

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