UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER J. GREEN, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-8751-DSF (SK)

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

Respondent.

Petitioner is a California state prisoner who filed a letter requesting an extension of time to file a federal habeas petition, leading the Clerk’s Office to open this action. (ECF 1). He claims he was unable to file a timely petition before his limitations period lapsed because he was involved in (what appear to be) family court proceedings. (Id.). But Petitioner has filed no actual petition presenting a justiciable “case” or “controversy.” Calderon v. Ashmus,

(1998). Without that necessary case-opening petition, 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 petition but no underlying petition); Casaburi v. Warden,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) (same). Nor can the Court prospectively determine the timeliness of an unfiled petition. 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 requesting extension of time to file petition); Ford v. Warden,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2008) (dismissing action where petitioner sought ruling that one-year 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: October 8, 2020 / )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PRESENTED BY:

ee SteveKim ———~C~C— United States Magistrate Judge