Jimenez v. Jane/John Doe

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 5, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-04281
StatusUnknown

This text of Jimenez v. Jane/John Doe (Jimenez v. Jane/John Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jimenez v. Jane/John Doe, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PEDRO JIMENEZ, Petitioner, 24-CV-4281 (LTS) -against- ORDER JOHN/JANE DOE, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Sullivan Correctional Facility and is acting pro se. He submits a letter dated May 16, 2024, requesting that the Court extend the limitations period for him to submit a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a habeas petition is denied. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has the authority to review and dismiss a § 2254 petition without ordering a responsive pleading from the state “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4; see Acosta v. Nunez, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). DISCUSSION Petitioner requests an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A review of public records reflects that Petitioner does not yet have a pending habeas petition.1 Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal

courts “to the resolution of ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’” Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 69, 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Second Circuit has held that “a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a [habeas] petition until a petition is actually filed [,]” because prior to an actual filing, “there is no case or controversy to be heard[.]” Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2001) (Section 2255 motion); United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The same rule applies to actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746 (1998) (denying action for declaratory judgment that would allow petitioner, who had not yet filed a § 2254 petition, to “obtain a declaration as to the applicable statute of limitations in a federal habeas action without ever having shown that he has exhausted state remedies”).

“Where a motion, nominally seeking an extension of time, contains allegations sufficient to support a claim . . ., a district court is empowered, and in some instances may be required, under Haines to treat that motion as a substantive motion for relief.” Green, 260 F.3d at 82. In this application, however, Petitioner does not include any allegations identifying the grounds on which he challenges his state court judgment. The Court therefore cannot construe the letter as a

1Although Petitioner does not identify the conviction that he is challenging, public records reflect that he is incarcerated pursuant to his 2019 New York County conviction. See People v. Jimenez, 217 A.D.3d 586 (1st Dept. June 22, 2023), lv denied, 40 N.Y.3d 951 (Aug. 28, 2023). substantive petition. See Application of Wattanasiri, 982 F. Supp. 955, 958 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (denying request for extension of limitations period to file § 2255 motion when there was no pending habeas petition). Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a habeas petition must therefore be denied. 2 CONCLUSION Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a habeas petition is denied because the

Court lacks authority to award such relief. Because Petitioner’s request for an extension at this time makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a copy of the form to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case opened under this docket number. SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

2 A federal habeas corpus petition must be filed within one year from the latest of four dates, that is, the date when: (1) the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) a government- created impediment to making such a motion is removed; (3) the constitutional right asserted is initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if it has been made retroactively available to cases on collateral review; or (4) the facts supporting the claim(s) could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676 (2d Cir. 1996). AO 241 Page | (Rev. 06/13)

Petition for Relief From a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in State Custody (Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus)

Instructions 1. To use this form, you must be a person who is currently serving a sentence under a judgment against you in a state court. You are asking for relief from the conviction or the sentence. This form is your petition for relief. 2.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Calderon v. Ashmus
523 U.S. 740 (Supreme Court, 1998)
United States v. Luis G. Leon
203 F.3d 162 (Second Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Figueroa
683 F.3d 69 (Third Circuit, 2012)
Application of Wattanasiri
982 F. Supp. 955 (S.D. New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jimenez v. Jane/John Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-janejohn-doe-nysd-2024.