Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02643/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02643-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrel Adams
Respondent
Arturo Chairez
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

ARTURO CHAIREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DARREL ADAMS, Warden,

 Respondent.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2643 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 1 & 3)

The above-titled action was opened on May 17, 2007, when petitioner, a California

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion “For Time Extention of Habeas Corpus Petition

Under 2254 28 U.S.C.A. Fed. Rule Civil Procedure,” in which petitioner seeks to “extend the

deadline,” imposed by the applicable statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions, with

respect to 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 3:07-cv-02643-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/11/07 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

GRANTED.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket Nos. 1 & 3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2007

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-02643-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2