Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02631/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02631-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Errol Bagner
Plaintiff
James 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERROL BAGNER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2631 WHA (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc 1)

This case was opened when petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at

Pleasant Valley State Prison, filed a document captioned “Request Extension of Time to File

Petition.” In it he asks “for an order extending time to file his petition to this Court.” Because

he is a prisoner and because he refers to a “petition,” the clerk assumed he meant a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. However, he does not actually say so, and on page two of the petition

he refers to having been unable, because of his incarceration, to “fil[e] his response seeking

vacation of labor commissioner’s award avoiding talent agent contract...” on time. There is no

other indication what sort of petition he has in mind.

The Court cannot extend the statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition, if indeed

that is what petitioner intends. Because of the possibility that he does intend a habeas

petition, in an effort to protect petitioner’s rights the motion for an extension has been treated

as habeas petition and a new case opened. However, the motion provides no claims for

habeas relief. For that reason, it will be dismissed with leave to amend to file a habeas

petition on the Court’s form, if in fact that is what petitioner desires to do. If he does not, he

should write to the clerk explaining what kind of case he has in mind.

Case 3:05-cv-02631-WHA Document 5 Filed 08/15/05 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

CONCLUSION 

The motion for an extension of time (doc 1) is DENIED. The motion, treated as a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, is DISMISSED with leave to amend on the Court’s form

within thirty days from the date this order is entered (the date the clerk has stamped on the

first page). If petitioner does not want to file a habeas petition, he should so inform the Court

by filing a statement to that effect with the clerk.

The clerk shall send petitioner a copy of the Court’s form for section 2254 habeas

petitions with his copy of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15 , 2005.

 

 WILLIAM ALSUP

 United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.05\BAGNER631.DWL 

Case 3:05-cv-02631-WHA Document 5 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2