1 2

3

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

9 10 DAVID CASH, Case No. CV 20-6571-JFW (KK) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION 13 UNKNOWN, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 Respondent.

15 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 David Cash (“Cash”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has initiated the 20 instant action by filing a letter requesting an extension of time to file a petition for 21 writ of habeas corpus. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. There is, however, no pending 22 habeas petition. Cash’s request must, therefore, be DENIED. 23 II. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may only adjudicate cases 26 or controversies, and may not issue advisory opinions. U.S. Nat’l Bank v. Indep. Ins. 27 Agents of Am., Inc.,

,

,

(1993). In 1 for habeas corpus relief – the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil case.” 2 Woodford v. Garceau,

,

,

(2003); 3 see also Calderon v. Ashmus,

,

,

(1998) (no “case or controversy” where prisoners sought declaratory relief to 5 determine time limits that would govern future habeas actions). 6 Here, Cash seeks an extension of time to file a petition for writ of habeas 7 corpus. Dkt. 1. Cash argues he has been unable to “study, learn and be addressing to 8 [his] appeal” because since his resentencing he has been transferred three times and, 9 for the past four months, has been at a transitional institution without any of his 10 property, including his legal transcripts or paperwork.

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

; Calderon,

. 14 Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Cash’s request for an 15 extension of time and this action must be dismissed.1 See United States v. Leon, 203

, 164 (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

26 1 If and when Cash files a habeas petition in this Court, this Court can consider whether Cash is entitled to a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber,

, 125 S. 27 Ct. 1528,

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

, 1 III. 2 CONCLUSION 3 It is, therefore, ORDERED that Cash’s request for extension of time is 4 | DENIED and Judgment be entered summarily dismissing this action without 5 | prejudice. 6 7 | Dated: August 21, 2020 2 CZ ti 8 HONORABLE JOHN FPF. WALTER 9 Ry ates District Judge 10 | Presented by: 11 Cealy 12 | KENLY KIYAKATO B United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28