Opinion
22-cv-12923
06-06-2023
DAVID J. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME [ECF NO. 1] WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Michigan prisoner David J. Williams' motion for enlargement of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The clerk filed the document as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner states that he intends to file a habeas petition, but requires additional time to review and research the issues involved in his case to file the petition. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner's motion for enlargement of time must be denied because he has not yet filed a habeas petition. Petitioner cannot request relief from his filing deadline before he has initiated a habeas case in this Court. For Petitioner to seek equitable tolling (which permits a Court to toll the statute of limitations under limited circumstances, see Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 783 (6th Cir. 2010)), he must first file a habeas petition. United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 421 (6th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a court cannot give “pre-approval” of equitable tolling before a habeas petition is filed).
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's motion for an enlargement of time to file his habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. When and if Petitioner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court will review his request that the Court toll the statute of limitations and/or otherwise deem his petition to be timely filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.