Kiner v. Unknown
Filing
2
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 5/22/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (fth)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS KINER,
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 17cv0923 BEN (BGS)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v.
14
15
UNKNOWN,
Defendant.
16
17
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a document wherein he states that he is
18
19
“in the process of filing a federal writ of habeas corpus,” pursuant to in 28 U.S.C. §
20
2254. He states, however, that he has been delayed in preparing his petition after being
21
taken into custody on unrelated charges. (See Pet. at 1.)
FAILURE TO FILE PETITION
22
Petitioner has not filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action.
23
24
Therefore, unless Petitioner is a capital prisoner, he has not initiated habeas proceedings
25
in this Court. Calderon (Nicolaus) v. U.S. District Court, 98 F.3d 1102, 1107 n.
26
3 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Unlike non-capital prisoners who initiate habeas proceedings by filing
27
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, capital prisoners commence federal habeas
28
///
1
17cv0923 BEN (BGS)
1
proceedings by filing a request for appointment of counsel.”); McFarland v. Scott, 512
2
U.S. 849 (1994).
3
Petitioner does not contend that he is a capital prisoner, that is, a prisoner under
4
sentence of death. As such, if Petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas action in this
5
Court he must (as is the case with all non-capital prisoners) file a petition for writ of
6
habeas corpus, which will be given a separate civil case number.
7
The Court cautions Petitioner that a one-year period of limitation applies to a
8
petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
9
State court. The limitation period begins to run on the latest of:
10
11
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented
from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been
newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
22
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). If the federal petition is filed after the statute of
23
limitations has run, the petition will be summarily dismissed.
24
The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus
25
petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006
26
(9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an
27
application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court
28
officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and
2
17cv0923 BEN (BGS)
1
rules governing filings.”). However, the filing of a federal habeas petition does not toll
2
the statute of limitations. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).
3
4
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice because Petitioner has not filed a
5
Petition and has therefore failed to initiate federal habeas proceedings in this action. For
6
Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank In Forma
7
Pauperis Application and a blank form Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
8
The Clerk shall close the file.
9
10
Dated: May 22, 2017
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17cv0923 BEN (BGS)
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?