Daniel A. Martinez v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-06989
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DANIEL A. MARTINEZ, Case No. 2:21-cv-6989-FLA (MAR) 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, DISMISSING 15 WARDEN, MATTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

16 Respondent. AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17

18 19 I. 20 INTRODUCTION 21 Daniel A. Martinez (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner, has constructively 22 filed1 a letter requesting an extension of time for filing his federal habeas petition. 23 ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 1. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s Motion 24 for an Extension of Time is denied, and the action is dismissed without prejudice. 25 /// 26 ///

27 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to 1 II. 2 SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS 3 On April 15, 2020, the California Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s state 4 habeas petition. Dkt. 1 at 1. On August 24, 2021, Petitioner constructively filed the 5 instant letter with the Court requesting an extension of time for which to file his 6 federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. 7 III. 8 DISCUSSION 9 A. THE COURT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE 10 MOTION BEFORE THE PETITION IS FILED2 11 1. Applicable law 12 Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution sets forth the “case or 13 controversy” requirement. See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) (“Under 14 Article III, § 2, of the Constitution, the federal courts have jurisdiction over this 15 dispute between appellants and appellees only if it is a ‘case’ or ‘controversy.’”). “This 16 is a ‘bedrock requirement.’” Id. (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans 17 United for Separate of Church and State Inc, Inc. 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982)). “No 18 principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of 19 government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual 20 cases or controversies.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37 21 (1976). In the context of a habeas action, “a habeas suit begins with the filing of an 22 application for habeas corpus relief – the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil 23 case.” Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 208 (2003); see also Calderon v. Ashmus, 24 523 U.S. 740, 746–49 (1998) (no “case or controversy” where prisoners sought 25 declaratory relief to determine time limits that would govern future habeas actions). 26

27 2 While the Court cannot rule on Petitioner’s Motion for an Extension of Time because there is no 1 2. Analysis 2 Here, Petitioner’s Motion, in effect, seeks an advisory opinion regarding 3 whether his federal habeas petition will be time-barred if: (a) the petition is filed at 4 some unspecified date in the future, which may or may not be within the statute of 5 limitations, and (b) Respondent raises the statute of limitations as an affirmative 6 defense.3 As such, it seeks relief which the Court cannot grant without violating the 7 “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, section 2, of the United States 8 Constitution. See, e.g., In re Ortiz, No. 2:10-2013-CJC (RNB), 2010 WL 1170484, at 9 *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2010); Corcoran v. Tilton, 2008 WL 816682 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 10 2008); In re Brockett, 2006 WL 1329675 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006); Flores v. 11 California, 2002 WL 1226853 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2002); In re Burgess, 2001 WL 12 603609 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2001); see also United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 13 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness 14 of a section 2255 petition until a petition actually is filed); United States v. Clarke, 15 1998 WL 91069, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 24, 1998) (denying request for extension of 16 limitations period to file section 2255 motion). 17 If Petitioner files a federal habeas petition after the statute of limitations has 18 expired and if Respondent raises the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, it 19 will be incumbent on Petitioner to demonstrate that the Petition is not subject to 20 dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. Without a protective petition on file, 21 these issues cannot be resolved at this time in the context of this motion.4 As such, 22 the motion is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, 23 24 3 See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (explaining that option of filing protective petition is designed to avoid “predicament” of “a ‘petitioner trying in good faith to exhaust state 25 remedies may litigate in state court for years only to find out at the end that he was never properly filed,’ and thus that his federal habeas petition is time barred”). 26 4 If and when Petitioner files a habeas petition in this Court, this Court can consider whether 27 Petitioner is entitled to a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (“Rhines Stay”) or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Kelly Stay”) and whether statutory tolling 1 | the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 2 | constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a 3 | certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. 4 | R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-E] v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 5 | 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 6 IV. 7 ORDER 8 Thus, this Court ORDERS Judgment be entered: 9 (1) DENYING Motion for Extension of Time; 10 (2) summarily DISMISSING the Action without prejudice; and 11 (3) DENYING the Certificate of Appealability. 12 13 | Dated: September 8, 2021 14 15 pf) FERNANDO TI... AENLLI -ROCHA 16 United States District Judge Presented by: 18 A = © | WARGO R-ROCCONT 20 | United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28