Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01730/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01730-0/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 RP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bryan L. Booker, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1730-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

On August 12, 2010, Petitioner Bryan L. Booker, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Yuma (ASPC-Yuma), filed a “Motion To Request The Court To Suspend

Filing Time Frames” (Doc. 1). Petitioner’s pleading is not accompanied by a petition for writ

of habeas corpus. 

The Court is not able to construe the pleading as a petition for writ of habeas corpus

because the pleading is not accompanied by the statutory filing fee or an application to

proceed in forma pauperis, is not filed on the court-approved form for filing a petition for

writ of habeas corpus, does not specify any grounds for habeas corpus relief, does not set

forth any facts supporting any grounds, and does not specify the habeas relief requested. See

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Also, Petitioner’s pleading only provides limited information about Petitioner’s conviction

Case 2:10-cv-01730-GMS--ECV Document 3 Filed 08/31/10 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 -

and sentence. 

In his Motion, Petitioner states that he has “just learned that if he files a habeas corpus

petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the district court must dismiss

the petition as ‘mixed’” and that “[i]n order to prevent [him] from filing a mixed petition,

Petitioner is revisiting the state court to give them a ‘full and fair’ opportunity to resolve his

federal claims.” Petitioner requests that this Court “grant this Motion and [] suspend his time

frames for filing a habeas corpus petition.”

Essentially, Petitioner appears to be 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). Accordingly, the Court lacks

jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s Motion and the Motion will therefore be denied without

prejudice, and this matter will also be dismissed without prejudice.

Because this matter is being dismissed without prejudice, Petitioner is in no way

prevented by this Order from filing a future petition for writ of habeas corpus in a new case

in this Court. Also, Petitioner should note that in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78

(2005), the Supreme Court held that a district court could stay a “mixed petition” in order for

a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state court, after which he could return

to federal court to prosecute his petition. However, such a stay is only appropriate when

(1) the petitioner has good cause for failing to exhaust, (2) his unexhausted claims are

potentially meritorious, and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Id. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s a “Motion To Request The Court To Suspend Filing Time Frames”

(Doc. 1) is denied without prejudice.

Case 2:10-cv-01730-GMS--ECV Document 3 Filed 08/31/10 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 -

(2) This matter is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and the

Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(3) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 31st day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01730-GMS--ECV Document 3 Filed 08/31/10 Page 3 of 3