Booth v. Anderson

E.D. Virginia

Booth v. Anderson

DecidedJune 30, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00398

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Booth v. Anderson, (E.D. Va. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division TERRENCE M. BOOTH, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:22CV398 DAVID ANDERSON, WARDEN, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Terrence M. Booth filed this action on May 25, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) In lieu of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Booth submitted a motion asking for an extension of time in which to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1, at 1.) Federal Courts, however, lack jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2254 petition until it is actually filed. Gregory v. Bassett, No. 3:07cv790, 2009 WL 455267, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2009) (citations omitted); see United States v. White, 257 F. App’x 608, 609 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that no case or controversy existed before § 2255 motion was actually filed (citing United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000))). Because a § 2254 petition did not accompany Booth’s motion for an extension of time and because the motion did not contain any cognizable claims for habeas relief, Booth’s motion for an extension of time, (ECF No. 1), will be DENIED. See Ramirez v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 439, 440-41 (E.D. Va. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court notes that Booth has now filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that was opened by the Clerk as another civil action. Accordingly, Booth may proceed with his habeas petition under that case number. However, this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall issue. / Date: is - 30 -00F). ett Richmond, Virginia United States DiSttict Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division TERRENCE M. BOOTH, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:22CV398 DAVID ANDERSON, WARDEN, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Terrence M. Booth filed this action on May 25, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) In lieu of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Booth submitted a motion asking for an extension of time in which to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1, at 1.) Federal Courts, however, lack jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2254 petition until it is actually filed. Gregory v. Bassett, No. 3:07cv790, 2009 WL 455267, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2009) (citations omitted); see United States v. White, 257 F. App’x 608, 609 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that no case or controversy existed before § 2255 motion was actually filed (citing United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000))). Because a § 2254 petition did not accompany Booth’s motion for an extension of time and because the motion did not contain any cognizable claims for habeas relief, Booth’s motion for an extension of time, (ECF No. 1), will be DENIED. See Ramirez v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 439, 440-41 (E.D. Va. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court notes that Booth has now filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that was opened by the Clerk as another civil action. Accordingly, Booth may proceed with his habeas petition under that case number. However, this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall issue. / Date: is - 30 -00F). ett Richmond, Virginia United States DiSttict Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Booth v. Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booth-v-anderson-vaed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack