Norwood v. Berghuis
ORDER Denying Petitioner's Letter Request. Signed by Honorable Arthur J Tarnow. (CGre, )
Norwood v. Berghuis
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DANNY NORWOOD, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent. ______________________________/ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S LETTER REQUEST Danny Norwood ("Petitioner") has filed a letter request seeking permission to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, however, has not submitted his habeas petition, nor has he paid the $5.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. It is well-established that "`[t]he exercise of judicial power under Art. III of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy,' and `a federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.'" United States National Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)); see also Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 562 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner's letter request seeks an advisory opinion from this Court regarding the timeliness of a habeas petition which has not been submitted to the Court for review. The Court is unable to render such advisory opinions. CASE NO. 2:06-CV-12205 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, Petitioner's letter request seeking permission to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is closed. This denial is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The Court makes no determination about the timeliness or merits of such a petition. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow Arthur J. Tarnow United States District Judge Dated: May 17, 2006 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on May 17, 2006, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Catherine A. Pickles Judicial Secretary
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?