United States District Court, D. Minnesota
LEO I. BRISBOIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon the routine supervision of the cases that pend before the Court pursuant to a general assignment made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On December 15, 2014, Petitioner Nakerrick Mosby ("Petitioner") filed a motion for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [Docket No. 1]. No habeas petition currently pends before the Court. Petitioner represents that he attempted to file a habeas petition, but that officials at the prison where he is incarcerated lost his petition before it could be mailed to the Court, requiring Petitioner to rewrite an entirely new petition. (Id.) Petitioner represents that his deadline for filing a habeas petition has since expired (as of December 15, 2014), see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and Petitioner requests that the Court unilaterally and summarily extend the statute of limitations deadline to allow him to complete and file a timely habeas petition.
Petitioner essentially requests the Court deem any future petition as presumptively timely filed, despite the apparent expired statute of limitations. The Court declines to do so. The Court will not and doubts that it has the authority to unilaterally waive the time limitations set by Section 2244(d). No habeas petition pends before the Court, and likewise, the Court declines to prospectively determine whether or not any arguments to toll the statute of limitations may be applicable to any future habeas petition without any record whatsoever.
The Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for an order extending the statute of limitations applicable to file a habeas petition, [Docket No. 1]. That being said, nothing precludes Petitioner from filing a habeas petition at a later date, following which the timeliness and merits of which can be addressed upon a proper record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Additionally, because no habeas petition pends before the Court, and because the Court denies Petitioner's motion, [Docket No. 1], the Court recommends ...