Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00346/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00346-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JAMES MILLER, Civil No. 14cv0346-BTM (KSC)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Director, et al., 

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a document wherein he

requests an extension of time to file a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court

presumably, based on his status, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner has not filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this action. Therefore,

unless Petitioner is a capital prisoner, he has not initiated habeas proceedings in this Court. 

Calderon (Nicolaus) v. United States District Court, 98 F.3d 1102, 1107 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1996)

(“Unlike non-capital prisoner who initiate habeas proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, capital prisoners commence federal habeas proceedings by filing a request for

appointment of counsel.”); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994). 

Petitioner does not contend that he is a capital prisoner, that is, a prisoner under sentence

of death, and there is nothing in the documents he has submitted which indicates that he is a

capital prisoner. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas action in this Court he must (as

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JOHN\2254\14cv0346 Miller -Dismiss.wpd, 22014 -1- 14cv0346

Case 3:14-cv-00346-BTM-KSC Document 2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is the case with all non-capital prisoners) file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which will

be given a new civil case number. However, if Petitioner is in fact a capital prisoner, he may

request that the Court re-open this action in order to permit him to file a Petition under the civil

case number assigned to this action. 

Further, although Petitioner's request for an extension of time indicates he is aware of the

deadline for filing a federal habeas petition (see Application at 1-2), the Court cautions

Petitioner that a one-year period of limitation applies to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by

a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period begins to

run on the latest of:

(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;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created byState 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.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006). 

The statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But

see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when

its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are

in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d

1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state application for post-conviction relief which is

ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under

consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as

amended 439 F.3d 993. However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JOHN\2254\14cv0346 Miller -Dismiss.wpd, 22014 -2- 14cv0346

Case 3:14-cv-00346-BTM-KSC Document 2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

continues to run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167,

181-82 (2001).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice because Petitioner has not filed a Petition

and has therefore failed to initiate federal habeas proceedings in this action. If Petitioner is a

capital prisoner he may request to have this case reopened.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JOHN\2254\14cv0346 Miller -Dismiss.wpd, 22014 -3- 14cv0346

Case 3:14-cv-00346-BTM-KSC Document 2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 3