JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

FRANCISCO ORTEGA, No. CV 20-07261-DSF (DFM)

Petitioner, Order Summarily Dismissing Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction and v. Administratively Closing Case

MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

On August 11, 2020, Francisco Ortega (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a request for an extension of time to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Dkt. 1. For the reasons discussed herein, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution “limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to live cases and controversies.” Kittel v. Thomas,

(9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). An actual case or controversy exists when, throughout the litigation, a petitioner continues to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit and suffers some actual injury that is likely to be “redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spencer v. Kemna,

(1998) (citation omitted). A federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a habeas petition unless and until such a petition is actually filed because there otherwise is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III. See Casaburi v. Warden, No. 13-4705,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) (collecting cases for proposition that federal court does not have jurisdiction to give advisory opinion that statute of limitations will not bar anticipated, but not yet filed, federal habeas petition); United States v. Leon,

(2nd Cir. 2000) (federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider request to extend time to file motion under

). Here, because Petitioner has not actually filed a federal habeas petition, there is no action or proceeding pending and no case or controversy to be heard. Consequently, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a federal habeas petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for an extension is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 1, 2020 / )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE