Manuel J. Castanon v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MANUEL J. CASTANON, Case No. 2:20-cv-11459-VAP (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, an inmate at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, 19 California, filed a document requesting an extension of time to file a “civil suit.” 20 According to Petitioner, he intends to file a civil suit based upon an incident occurring 21 on January 27, 2020, but he has been unable to use the law library or “get the correct 22 forms due to the Covid-pandemic.” Petitioner is concerned that his “deadline” will 23 expire on January 27, 2020, and seeks an order extending the time for him to file an 24 action. (ECF No. 1.) 25 To the extent that Petitioner’s request is construed as an attempt to challenge 26 a conviction or sentence, it is subject to dismissal. Petitioner has not filed a Petition 27 for Writ of Habeas Corpus that specifies what his claims are. Instead, Petitioner 28 appears to be requesting assistance in order to timely raise unspecified claims 1 challenging an unspecified action in the courts. 2 Petitioner’srequestseeksrelief that the Court could not grant without violating 3 the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the United States 4 Constitution. See, e.g.,Thomas v. Ochoa, 2013 WL 610772, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 5 2013) (“Because petitioner has not yet filed a habeas corpus petition, there is no 6 action or proceeding pending and no case or controversy to be heard.”); Casaburi v. 7 Warden, 2013 WL 3367275 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013); In re Ortiz, 2010 WL 1170484 8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2010); Corcoran v. Tilton, 2008 WL 816682 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 9 2008). The Court is also precluded from giving an advisory opinion as to the statute 10 of limitations. See United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding 11 that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2255 petition 12 until a petition is actually filed); see also Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746- 13 747 (1998) (finding no case or controversy where prisoners sought declaratory relief 14 regarding the statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions). Given the absence 15 of a live case or controversy, the Court has no authority to issue any further orders, 16 apart from dismissing the matter for lack of jurisdiction. See United States Catholic 17 Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76-77 (1988) (in the 18 absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, Article III court had no authority to order 19 compliance with subpoena upon risk of civil contempt). 20 To the extent Petitioner’s request couldbe construed as seeking additional time 21 to file a civil rights complaint challenging events that occurred at the California 22 Correctional Institution, it is also subject to dismissal. The California Correctional 23 Institution in Tehachapi isin Kern County. Kern County islocatedwithin the Eastern 24 District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Accordingly, the proper venue for such an 25 action would be the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 26 California.1 27 1While the Court offers no opinion on the timeliness of any civil rights complaint, it notes that any 28 future federal civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is subject to a two-year limitation 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 2 || prejudice. 3 4 || DATED: January 4, 2021 5 Viggen Pht GINIA A. PHILLIPS 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |, —— A period under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. See, e.g., Bird vy. Dep’t of Human Servs., 935 F.3d 738, 28 || 743 (9th Cir. 2019); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954-955 (9th Cir. 2004).