DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
On July 11, 2013, Petitioner Brian Odell Hopson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Doc. 1). On August 12, 2013, Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, lodged a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and lodged a Memorandum in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus.
I. Motion for Extension of Time
In his Motion for Extension of Time, Petitioner asks that the Court grant him an additional 30 to 90 days within which to file a habeas petition. Petitioner is essentially asking the Court to toll the statute of limitations and deem Petitioner's Petition as timely filed. The Court will not rule on the issue of whether Petitioner filed within the statue of limitations before Respondents have been served. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Extension of Time.
The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to file the Petition and Memorandum in Support with the filing date of August 12, 2013, the date the Court received the Petition.
II. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Petitioner's Application to Proceed to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).
Petitioner challenges his conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CR XXXX-XXXXXX-XXXDT for four counts of aggravated assault. Petitioner was sentenced to a 20-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an additional Respondent.
Petitioner raises two claims for relief:
(1) "Erroneous prejudicial procedural-denial with respect to Ariz. Court of Appeals, Div. 1, special action petition, ... being denied review in Ariz. Supreme Court, ... unduly denying defendant relief on the merits put-forth theretofore. As such constitutes unreasonable determination of the factual evidence represented thereupon, and misapplication contrary to constitution due process/equal protection of laws"; and
(2) "Erroneous prejudicial procedural-denial, with respect to Ariz. Supreme Court dismissing new petition for special action, ... thereby denying defendant du[e] relief on the merits of U.S. Constitutional/Federal and state law issues put forth."
IV. Dismissal with Leave to Amend
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, "a district court shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." In this case, Petitioner alleges that the Arizona Court of Appeals and Arizona Supreme Court failed to follow state law when declining review of his state actions. Petitioner does not describe how this denial of review violated his federal constitutional rights, nor does he allege that his ...