1 2

3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 MARTIN GONZALEZ, Case No. CV 20-1803-DSF (KK) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION 13 R. MADDEN, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 Respondent.

15 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Martin Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has initiated 20 the instant action by filing a “Motion for Extension of Time.” ECF Docket No. 21 (“Dkt.”) 1. Gonzalez requests an extension to “March 27, 2020 in which to file a writ 22 of habeas corpus,” id. at 3; however, there is no pending habeas petition. The Court, 23 therefore, cannot grant Gonzalez’s request. 24 II. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may only adjudicate cases 27 or controversies, and may not issue advisory opinions. U.S. Nat’l Bank v. Indep. Ins. 1 the context of a habeas action, “a habeas suit begins with the filing of an application 2 for habeas corpus relief – the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil case.” 3 Woodford v. Garceau,

,

,

(2003); 4 see also Calderon v. Ashmus,

,

,

(1998) (no “case or controversy” where prisoners sought declaratory relief to 6 determine time limits that would govern future habeas actions). 7 Here, Gonzalez seeks an extension of time to file a petition for writ of habeas 8 corpus. Dkt. 1. Gonzalez argues he has limited law library access because he is 9 currently housed in administrative segregation without access to the clerk available at 10 the general law library.

Gonzalez, however, has not filed a federal habeas petition 11 challenging his conviction or sentence. There is, therefore, no case or controversy 12 properly before the Court. See Woodford,

; Calderon,

- 13 49. 14 Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez’s Motion for 15 Extension of Time and this action must be dismissed.1 See United States v. Leon, 16

(2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“[A] federal court lacks jurisdiction to 17 consider the timeliness of a § 2255 petition until a petition is actually filed.”); Grissom 18 v. Barnes, No. CV 13-03593 SJO (SS),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 19 2013) (denying a “Motion For Permission To Stay Proceedings Until State Issues Are 20 Settled” due to lack of jurisdiction before a petition is filed “at some unspecified 21 future date”); McDade v. Warden, No. CV 10-08507 JVS (SS),

, at 22 *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2010) (no jurisdiction to decide timeliness or entitlement to 23 equitable tolling in advance of filing of Section 2254 petition). 24 /// 25 1 If and when Gonzalez files a habeas petition in this Court, this Court can 26 consider whether Gonzalez is entitled to a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber,

,

,

(2005) (“Rhines Stay”) or Kelly v. Small, 315

(9th Cir. 2003) (“Kelly Stay”) and whether statutory tolling under

CONCLUSION 3 It is, therefore, ORDERED that Gonzalez’s Motion for Extension of Time is 4 | DENIED and Judgment be entered summarily dismissing this action without 5 | prejudice. 6 | DATED: March 4, 2020 wt i to )

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 | Presented by: 10 1 te hy 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28