Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02110/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02110-0/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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carl Dwight Davis, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2110-PHX-GMS (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner Carl Dwight Davis, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, has filed a “Notice of Intent to File Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus

and a Request for Assistance” (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 3), and a Motion for Clarification and Statutory Tolling (Doc. 5), and has requested

the appointment of counsel. The Court will dismiss this action and deny the pending motions

as moot.

Petitioner asks that the Court clarify when the statute of limitations for filing a petition

for habeas corpus begins to run and requests that the Court toll the statute of limitations.

Petitioner’s Notice is not accompanied by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court is

not able to construe Petitioner’s Motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus because it is

not filed on the court-approved form and does not set forth any facts supporting Petitioner’s

request for habeas relief. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the

Case 2:11-cv-02110-GMS--MHB Document 8 Filed 11/28/11 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

- 2 -

United States District Courts. Also, Petitioner’s Notice does not provide any information

about Petitioner’s conviction, such as the crime(s) for which he was convicted, the date of

his conviction, or when his judgment of conviction was final. Without a proper Petition

before it, the Court can take no action on Petitioner’s requests and will therefore dismiss this

action without prejudice. 

With respect to Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and Tolling, Petitioner is

essentially seeking an advisory opinion from this Court regarding the application of the time

limits imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which provides in part that “[a] 1-year period of

limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” However, a federal court may not issue advisory

opinions. See United States v. Cook, 795 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (district court erred

in tolling statute of limitations as to future claims by persons not party to the case before the

court). The Court will therefore deny Petitioner’s Motion.

With respect to Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel, “[i]ndigent state

prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the

circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due

process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the

Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B).

There is presently no Petition pending before the Court and Petitioner has not made

the necessary showing for appointment of counsel at this time. The Court will therefore deny

without prejudice Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. 

Petitioner is not precluded from filing a § 2254 petition in a new case in the future.

Any future petition filed by Petitioner should: (1) name Petitioner's current custodian as a

respondent, (2) show how Petitioner is being held in custody in violation of the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States, (3) specify all the exhausted grounds for relief available

to Petitioner, (4) set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of his grounds, and (5)

provide information as to how Petitioner has first exhausted his state court remedies as to

Case 2:11-cv-02110-GMS--MHB Document 8 Filed 11/28/11 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

- 3 -

each ground on which he requests action by this Court. Petitioner must also use the courtapproved form for each ground in the petition. See Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.5(a)

(habeas petitioners must use the court-approved form when filing a pro se petition pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254).

 In the event that the respondent in any future habeas action instituted by Petitioner

raises the 1-year period of limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) as an affirmative defense,

Petitioner will be free to argue that his petition is subject to equitable tolling. See Corjasso

v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (Section 2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling

based on a showing that “exceptional circumstances” beyond the prisoner’s control).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The “Notice of Intent to File Petition” (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed

without prejudice; the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(2) Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.

(3) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied as

moot.

(4) Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and Statutory Tolling (Doc. 5) is denied.

(5) The Clerk of Court must provide Petitioner with the current court-approved

forms for filing a “Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Non-Death Penalty)” and an “Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner (Habeas).”

DATED this 28th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-02110-GMS--MHB Document 8 Filed 11/28/11 Page 3 of 3