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