Jones v. State of California

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. There is no case or controversy over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly, the above-entitled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner& #039;s filing a new case with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a complaint for other relief. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 8), is GRANTED. Docket No. 7 is DENIED as duplicative. The Clerk shall close the file. Motions terminated: 8 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Danny Jones, 7 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Danny Jones. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/3/2013. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DANNY JONES,
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15

Respondent.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 13-01717 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 7 & 8)

17
18

On April 16, 2013, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion

19

for an extension of time seeking six to twelve months “to prepare a writ.” (Docket No.

20

2.) Petitioner’s motion was granted in part. (Docket No. 9.) Petitioner was instructed

21

to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus by June 20, 2013. (Id.) Petitioner has filed a

22

letter requesting additional time to file a petition. (Docket No. 11.)

23

It is obvious that Petitioner seeks to toll the statute of limitations in order to file a

24

federal habeas petition challenging his state petition. Article III, Section 2 of the United

25

States Constitution restricts adjudication in federal courts to “Cases” and

26

“Controversies.” See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for

27

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). There is no concrete

28

dispute for this Court to decide: Petitioner’s request in essence asks the court to
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\01717Jones_dism.wpd

1

determine in advance whether his petition for writ of habeas corpus will be time-barred

2

if it is filed at some unspecified date in the future which may or may not be within the

3

one-year period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This Court could not grant the

4

requested relief without offending the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement.

5

Finally, Petitioner may seek relief from the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §

6

2244(d) once he files a petition in federal court. Although Petitioner obtains no relief

7

today, he is not forever barred from requesting relief. See Calderon v. United States

8

Dist. Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1997) (Section 2244(d) is subject

9

to equitable tolling, although such tolling will not be available in most cases because
extensions of time should only be granted if extraordinary circumstances beyond a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time), cert. denied, 522 U.S.

12

1099, and cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds by

13

Calderon v. United States District Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en

14

banc), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060 (1999). If and when Petitioner files a late habeas

15

petition, he may make his tolling argument. At that point, and not before then, the

16

Court will consider whether the statute of limitations should be tolled. The motion for

17

an extension of time is DENIED.

18

CONCLUSION

19
20

There is no case or controversy over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction.

21

Accordingly, the above-entitled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to

22

Petitioner’s filing a new case with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a complaint

23

for other relief.

24
25
26
27

Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 8), is
GRANTED. Docket No. 7 is DENIED as duplicative.
The Clerk shall close the file.
DATED:

7/3/2013

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\01717Jones_dism.wpd

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JONES,

Case Number: CV13-01717 EJD

Petitioner,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
7/3/2013
That on
, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into
an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Danny Jones AA-4707
High Desert State Prison
P. O. Box 3030
Susanville, CA
Dated:

7/3/2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/ Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk
By: