Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00421/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00421-0/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

TEDDY SEUNG BAEK, Civil No. 13cv0421-MMA (BGS)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND

(2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

DAVID LONG, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No.1), but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and

has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, Petitioner has filed a Motion for

Relief in which he requests to be excused from the operation of the one-year statute of

limitations applicable to federal habeas petitions based on equitable tolling. (ECF No. 2.)

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See

Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit,

no later than April 22, 2013, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of

his inability to pay the fee. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California

In Forma Pauperis Application to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

I:\Chambers Anello\ODD # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\13cv0421-Dismiss.wpd, 22513 -1- 13cv0421

Case 3:13-cv-00421-MMA-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 2
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

MOTION FOR RELIEF

Petitioner’s request for relief from the operation of the statute of limitations based on

equitable tolling is premature. The Court will consider his arguments and permit him to renew

his Motion if and when the Court orders Respondent to file a response to the Petition. See e.g.

Wentzell v. Nevan, 674 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that although the District Court has

authority to raise the statute of limitations sua sponte, “that authority should only be exercised

after the court provides the petitioner with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.”)

Accordingly, the Motion for Relief is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner to renew his

motion if and when the Court orders a response to the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2013 _________________________________________

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

I:\Chambers Anello\ODD # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\13cv0421-Dismiss.wpd, 22513 -2- 13cv0421

Case 3:13-cv-00421-MMA-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 2