UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARIEL PANIAGUA, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-7613-JFW (SK)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION WARDEN,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a California state prisoner who filed a letter requesting an extension of time to file a federal habeas petition under

, leading the Clerk’s Office to open this action. (ECF 1). He contends that the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on his law library access should toll the federal statute of limitations under

(d)(1). But Petitioner has filed no actual petition presenting a justiciable “case” or “controversy.” Calderon v. Ashmus,

(1998). Without that, the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed. See, e.g., Harrison v. Warden,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016) (dismissing action for lack of jurisdiction where petitioner filed letter requesting extension of time to file federal habeas petition but no underlying petition); Casaburi v. Warden,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) (same). Moreover, the Court has no authority to preemptively extend the one- year limitations period before any § 2254 petition has even been filed. See, e.g., Calderon,

(no “justiciable case within the meaning of Article III” where petitioner asked court to determine timeliness “in anticipation of seeking habeas”); Melendez v. California,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2016) (petitioner could not “bypass the statute of limitations” by preemptively requesting extension of time to file); Ford v. Warden,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2008) (dismissing action where petitioner sought ruling that statute of limitations would not bar “anticipated, but not yet filed” petition). THEREFORE, this action is ordered DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment dismissing this action without prejudice will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 2, 2020 fi Zia N. JOHN F. WALTER LS. DISTRICT JUDGE

PRESENTED BY: ee ee STEVEKIM. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE