Anaya v. LNU

D. New Mexico

Anaya v. LNU

DecidedApril 15, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-00328

StatusUnknown

This text of Anaya v. LNU (Anaya v. LNU) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anaya v. LNU, (D.N.M. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ARTURO ANAYA, Petitioner, v. Civ No. 20-328 WJ/GJF FNU LNU, and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondents. ORDER REGARDING RECHARACTERIZATION OF LETTER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s handwritten letter challenging unspecified state convictions. ECF 1. Such a challenge, however, must be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, Petitioner is warned that if he pursues relief now, “any subsequent [§ 2254 petitions] will be subject to the restrictions on ‘second or successive’” habeas claims. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 376 (2003). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, if Petitioner wishes to seek relief from his state convictions, he must (1) file an amended § 2254 petition on the proper form and (2) either prepay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than May 15, 2020. The failure to timely comply with both directives will result in dismissal of this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall MAIL Petitioner a form § 2254 petition and an in forma pauperis motion. SO ORDERED. fj /] LL: LD (Ags fHE GREGORY J. FOURATT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ARTURO ANAYA, Petitioner, v. Civ No. 20-328 WJ/GJF FNU LNU, and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondents. ORDER REGARDING RECHARACTERIZATION OF LETTER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s handwritten letter challenging unspecified state convictions. ECF 1. Such a challenge, however, must be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, Petitioner is warned that if he pursues relief now, “any subsequent [§ 2254 petitions] will be subject to the restrictions on ‘second or successive’” habeas claims. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 376 (2003). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, if Petitioner wishes to seek relief from his state convictions, he must (1) file an amended § 2254 petition on the proper form and (2) either prepay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than May 15, 2020. The failure to timely comply with both directives will result in dismissal of this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall MAIL Petitioner a form § 2254 petition and an in forma pauperis motion. SO ORDERED. fj /] LL: LD (Ags fHE GREGORY J. FOURATT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anaya v. LNU, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anaya-v-lnu-nmd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack