Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01238/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01238-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald L. Richie, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1238-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

On June 10, 2010, Petitioner Ronald L. Richie, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Lewis (ASPC-Lewis), filed an untitled pleading (Doc. #1). In his pleading,

Petitioner seeks a 60-day extension of time to file a “writ in behalf of the issues raised

requiring such time to correspond matters by tape as he is legally blind.” Petitioner has filed

his pleading “by and through ADA Corr. Rep. Cynthia Nielson as aid to visually impa[i]red

Appellant.”

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 name a proper respondent, does not specify any grounds for habeas corpus

relief, does not set forth any facts supporting any grounds, and does not specify the habeas

Case 2:10-cv-01238-MHM--DKD Document 3 Filed 07/02/10 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 -

relief requested. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts. Also, Petitioner’s pleading 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. Nor does Petitioner’s pleading

provide any information regarding exhaustion of his state court remedies.

Essentially, Petitioner is 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 pleading, the pleading 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 petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s untitled pleading (Doc. #1) is denied without prejudice.

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

Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 1st day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01238-MHM--DKD Document 3 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 2