Jones v. Unknown, No. 3:2014cv00338 - Document 2 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 6/5/2014. Copy as directed to Jones.(cmcc, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CASSIUS LEE JONES, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:14CV338 v. UNKNOWN, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Cassius Lee Jones has submitted a motion asking for an extension of time in which to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 Jones's motion for an extension of time and because the motion did not contain any cognizable claims for habeas relief, Jones's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. See Ramirez v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 439, 440^1 (E.D. Va. 2006) (citations omitted). This action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward to Jones the form for filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Any § 2254 petition that Jones files must conform to the rules governing such motions and be sworn to under the penalty of perjury. See Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts, Rule 2(c). Jones also is advised that § 2254 petitions are subject to a
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
