Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Teddy Seung Baek v. David Long

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 25, 2013

TEDDY SEUNG BAEK,
PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID LONG, WARDEN, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE (2) DISMISSING CASE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No.1), but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, Petitioner has filed a Motion for Relief in which he requests to be excused from the operation of the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas petitions based on equitable tolling. (ECF No. 2.)

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than April 22, 2013, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

MOTION FOR RELIEF

Petitioner's request for relief from the operation of the statute of limitations based on equitable tolling is premature. The Court will consider his arguments and permit him to renew his Motion if and when the Court orders Respondent to file a response to the Petition. See e.g. Wentzell v. Nevan, 674 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that although the District Court has authority to raise the statute of limitations sua sponte, "that authority should only be exercised after the court provides the petitioner with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.") Accordingly, the Motion for Relief is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner to renew his motion if and when the Court orders a response to the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CC: ALL PARTIES

20130225

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.