Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00506/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00506-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Heidinger
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

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

GERALD HEIDINGER,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

 Respondent.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0506 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 3)

The instant action was opened when petitioner filed a document titled “Petitioner’s

Request for the Court to Toll; Hold the Time Limit for Filing of Federal Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in Abeyance,” in which petitioner seeks to toll the running of the statute of

limitations for a federal habeas petition he wishes to file in the future. 

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution restricts adjudication in federal

courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans

United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). In the absence of

an actual petition for a writ of habeas corpus or other civil complaint, there is no case or

controversy for this Court to adjudicate. See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir.

2001). Although, in some instances, a motion may be construed to be a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, see id. at 83-84, petitioner here has not alleged any grounds for such relief,

and indeed it is clear that he is not asking for relief from his conviction, but rather from the

Case 3:06-cv-00506-MMC Document 4 Filed 05/15/06 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

1

At such time as he files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner may, of

course, raise any applicable grounds for relief from the statute of limitations. 

2

statute of limitations.1 Moreover, the Court cannot discern from the instant filing whether

petitioner can meet even the most basic requirements for proceeding with a habeas petition in

federal court and, in particular, in the Northern District, such as proper jurisdiction and

venue. Consequently, the motion will not be construed as a habeas petition. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to

petitioner’s filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a complaint for other relief.

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

hereby GRANTED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 3. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2006

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-00506-MMC Document 4 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2