(HC) Bharth v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMIT BHARTH, Case No. 2:22-cv-00146-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Mr. Amit Bharth is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. This case was opened 18 when he filed a motion seeking additional time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF 19 No. 1. Mr. Bharth has not properly commenced a civil action. 20 To commence a civil action, a party is required to file a complaint or a petition. Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 3; Rule 3, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 203 22 (2003). Challenges to the validity of confinement or the duration of confinement are properly 23 brought in a habeas action. If Mr. Bharth intends to commence a federal habeas action, he must 24 file a signed petition stating his grounds for relief. All petitions for writs of habeas corpus must 25 be filed on the proper form, which the court will provide to Mr. Bharth. E.D. Cal. L.R. Cal. 26 190(b); see also Rule 2(c)-(d), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In addition, Mr. Bharth must 27 either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a complete application for leave to proceed in forma 28 pauperis. Until he files a signed petition and either pays the filing fee or files a completed 1 | application to proceed in forma pauperis, there is no case before the court.! 2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 3 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Mr. Bharth the court’s form petition for a writ of 4 | habeas corpus and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 5 2. Mr. Bharth shall submit, within thirty days of the date of this order, a signed petition 6 | for writ of habeas corpus that states the grounds for relief. 7 3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Mr. Bharth shall either submit the $5 filing 8 | fee or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 9 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in this case being closed. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ! - Dated: _ January 26, 2022 Q_—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 | 21 22 23 24 25 ' Petitioner is warned that his motion for an extension of time does not serve as a 26 || “protective petition” for purposes of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s one-year statute of limitation. See Delarm v. McDonald, No. Civ-S-11-0750-CKD P, 27 | 2011 WL 6012346, *2 n.6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011) (“Filing a request for an extension of time to file a § 2254 habeas petition before the petition has actually been filed is not proper as there is no 28 | § 2254 action until the petition has been filed. . . .”).