Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00953/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00953-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
District Attorney
Defendant
Andre M. Ferguson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE M. FERGUSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 08-0953 MMC(PR)

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY

CLOSING CASE; DIRECTIONS

TO CLERK

On February 14, 2008, petitioner, a California criminal detainee incarcerated at the

San Bruno County Jail and proceeding pro se, filed a document titled “Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus.” The document is comprised of the form approved by the Judicial Council

of California for filing habeas corpus petitions in the California state courts. The caption of

the petition identifies the “Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco” as the

presiding court and the “District Attorney” as the respondent. The information provided by

petitioner in the petition reveals that petitioner is a criminal detainee who has been arraigned

and is awaiting trial; he seeks to have the charges against him dismissed because of an

alleged unlawful delay in his arraignment. (Pet. at 3-4, 6.) Attached to the petition is a copy

of a letter petitioner wrote to the District Attorney notifying the District Attorney that

petitioner would be moving to have the charges against him dismissed because his

arraignment was in violation of California law. 

It is clear from the petition that petitioner is attempting to challenge his unlawful

Case 3:08-cv-00953-MMC Document 3 Filed 02/27/08 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

arraignment by way a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Superior

Court. Accordingly, as the instant action was opened in error when petitioner mistakenly

sent to this court a document he apparently intended to file in the Superior Court of San

Francisco County, the Clerk of the Court is hereby DIRECTED to administratively close the

case. If petitioner still seeks to challenge his alleged unlawful arraignment in the Superior

Court, he must refile his petition in that court. 

Because the instant action was opened in error, no filing fee is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 27, 2008

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00953-MMC Document 3 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 2