Paralles

(HC) Gosztyla v. Paralles

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 20212:21-cv-01815California480 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHANTELL GOSZTYLA, No. 2:21-cv-1815-EFB P Petitioner, v. ORDER M. PARALLES, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. She attempted to commence this action using the court’s form petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. However, on that form, she writes, “I am still building my claims. Still gathering proof. As of this date 9- 27-21 I am only filing motion to request 90 day extension on AEDPA state of limitation.” Id. at 5. In a separate filing, petitioner requests a 90-day extension of time to file a petition for relief under § 2254. ECF No. 2. As discussed below, petitioner has not properly commenced a civil action. To commence a civil action, a party is required to file a complaint or petition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; Rule 3, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 203 (2003). Until an action is properly commenced, the court may not rule…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.