JENKINS
v.
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion for an extension of time to file a habeas petition when no petition had been filed.
Petitioner filed a document seeking to overturn his conviction and an extension of time, which the Clerk construed as a habeas petition. However, Peti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Case Or Controversy Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
has not filed a habeas petition “at the time he sought an extension to the limitations period, there was no actual case or controversy to be heard." Swichkow v. United States, 565 F. App'x 840, 844 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion to extend the one-year limitation period for a section 2255 petition when no section 2255 petition had been filed); see also United States v. Leon, 203 F. 3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Here, because Leon has not yet filed an actual § 2255 petition, there is no case or controversy to be heard, and any opinion we were to render on the timeliness issue would be merely advisory."). Because Petitioner has not filed an actual habeas corpus petition under section 2254 and his construed motion does not articulate any claims or arguments on which habeas relief could be granted, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. See Stewart v. United States, 646 F. 3d 856, 857 n.1 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that a court may construe a pro se motion or notice as a substantive habeas corpus petition where the motion or notice contains allegations sufficient to support a claim for habeas relief). Thus, the case must be dismissed. As a final matter, Petitioner's conviction arises out of Bradford County, Florida, and therefore would properly be brought in the Jacksonville Division of the Middle District of Florida. See M.D. Fla. R. 1.04(a). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
2
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 24th day of March, 2025.
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: Petitioner
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. Sec'y Dep't Of Corr., 2023 WL 3394161 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…tioner "must first file a habeas corpus petition before the Court may act on his substantive claims or on his claim that he might be entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period.” Osborn v. Sec’y, Dep't of Corr., No. 2:23-cv-290- JES-NPM, 2023 WL 3394161, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2023). When a petitioner ---PAGE 2--- has not filed a habeas petition “at the time he sought an extension to the limitations period, there was no actual case or controversy to be heard." Swichkow v. United States, 565 F.…
-
Wilson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Bradford) (M.D. Fla. 2025)…red for a § 2254 petition. Instead, Wilson simply requests a sixty-day extension of time to file a habeas petition. The Court is without jurisdiction to grant Wilson the relief he seeks. See Osborn v. Sec’y, Dep't of Corr., No. 2:23-cv-290-JES-NPM, 2023 WL 3394161, *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2023); Sisneros v. Biter, No. CV 12-0756-PA MLG, 2012 WL 395758, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012) (“The Court simply does not have jurisdiction to extend the time for filing or give an advisory opinion as to the timeliness of a…
Authorities Cited
- Sherodney Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011)
- Jenkins v. Sec'y Dep't Of Corr., 2023 WL 3394161 (M.D. Fla. 2025)