Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01609/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01609-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ULISES OROZCO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

RESPONDENT.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01609-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND 

TERMINATE CASE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On September 5, 2013, Petitioner submitted a motion for extension of time to the 

Sacramento Division of this Court. The motion was opened as a habeas case. Because the 

matter concerned a conviction in Fresno County Superior Court, it was transferred to the Fresno 

Division.

On October 29, 2013, the Court reviewed Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner was advised 

that a habeas action could not proceed on a motion. He was informed that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2242 and Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the initial filing must be a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the Court construed his motion as a petition, but 

found it deficient as such because Petitioner did not specify any grounds for relief or any facts in 

Case 1:13-cv-01609-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/07/14 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

2

support, and he failed to name a proper respondent. The petition was then dismissed, and 

Petitioner was provided with a blank form petition and granted thirty days to file an amended 

petition in accordance with Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Over thirty 

days have passed and Petitioner has failed to comply or respond in any manner. Therefore, the 

petition will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. Nevertheless, the Court makes no 

finding regarding the timeliness of any future petition; Petitioner remains subject to the one year 

statute of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Although the limitations period is tolled 

while a properly filed request for collateral review is pending in state court, 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d)(2), it does not toll for the time an application is pending in federal court. Duncan v. 

Walker, 531 U.S. 991 (2001).

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01609-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 2