Free Order Dismissing Case - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00953-MMC

Document 3

Filed 02/27/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE M. FERGUSON, Petitioner, vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C 08-0953 MMC(PR) ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

On February 14, 2008, petitioner, a California criminal detainee incarcerated at the San Bruno County Jail and proceeding pro se, filed a document titled "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." The document is comprised of the form approved by the Judicial Council of California for filing habeas corpus petitions in the California state courts. The caption of the petition identifies the "Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco" as the presiding court and the "District Attorney" as the respondent. The information provided by petitioner in the petition reveals that petitioner is a criminal detainee who has been arraigned and is awaiting trial; he seeks to have the charges against him dismissed because of an alleged unlawful delay in his arraignment. (Pet. at 3-4, 6.) Attached to the petition is a copy of a letter petitioner wrote to the District Attorney notifying the District Attorney that petitioner would be moving to have the charges against him dismissed because his arraignment was in violation of California law. It is clear from the petition that petitioner is attempting to challenge his unlawful

Case 3:08-cv-00953-MMC

Document 3

Filed 02/27/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

arraignment by way a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Superior Court. Accordingly, as the instant action was opened in error when petitioner mistakenly sent to this court a document he apparently intended to file in the Superior Court of San Francisco County, the Clerk of the Court is hereby DIRECTED to administratively close the case. If petitioner still seeks to challenge his alleged unlawful arraignment in the Superior Court, he must refile his petition in that court. Because the instant action was opened in error, no filing fee is due. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 27, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2