Zenaido Valadez v. People of State of California

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-09081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZENAIDO VALADEZ, ) Case No. CV 20-9081-MCS (SP) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ) DENYING POSTPONEMENT 14 PEOPLE OF STATE OF ) REQUEST AND SUMMARILY CALIFORNIA, ) DISMISSING ACTION 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 On October 2, 2020, “petitioner” Zenaido Valadez – who has not actually 19 yet filed a petition in this Court – filed a document titled “Declaration in Support 20 of Request to Postpone Deadline for Petition of Federal Habeas Corpus.” 21 Petitioner is a California state prisoner who requests an indefinite extension of 22 time to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Specifically, it 23 appears that petitioner is seeking an enlargement of his time under the 24 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of 25 limitations to file a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The relief 26 petitioner requests cannot be granted. 27 Under the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the 28 United States Constitution, federal courts may not issue advisory opinions. See 1 Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968). Because 2 petitioner has not actually filed a federal habeas petition challenging his 3 conviction or sentence, there is no case or controversy properly before this Court. 4 This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion to extend petitioner’s time 5 to file a federal habeas petition or to otherwise decide the timeliness of some such 6 potential future petition. See U.S. v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000) (“a 7 federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2255 petition until 8 a petition is actually filed”); McDade v. Warden, 2010 WL 4795377, at *1 (C.D. 9 Cal. 2010) (no jurisdiction to decide timeliness or entitlement to equitable tolling 10 in advance of filing of § 2254 petition); see also Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 11 740, 746-49, 118 S. Ct. 1694, 140 L. Ed. 2d 970 (1998) (no “case or controversy” 12 where prisoners sought declaratory relief to determine the time limits that would 13 govern future habeas actions); U.S. v. Cook, 795 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 14 (district court erred by tolling statute of limitations in advance of the filing of 15 potentially untimely claims). 16 Petitioner contends he is still exhausting his state remedies, and COVID-19 17 has made it almost impossible to access the prison law library. If and when 18 petitioner files a habeas petition in this Court, and if the timeliness of that petition 19 is questioned, this Court can consider whether petitioner is entitled to statutory 20 tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) or to equitable tolling. But those are matters 21 that cannot be decided at this juncture. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 28 2 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s request for postponement 2 || of the deadline for him to file a habeas corpus petition is DENIED, and that 3 || Judgment be entered summarily dismissing this action without prejudice. 4 5 || DATED: October 22, 2020 4, / £ 6 lak . Conan 7 HONORABLE MARK C. SCARSI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by:

11 12 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRAT E JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28