Jose Batres v. Unknown

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. **See attached Order for details.** Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSE BATRES,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

vs.
UNKNOWN,

14

Respondent.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 14-4208 JAK (FFM)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION

16

Jose Batres, a California State prisoner proceeding pro se, apparently

17

wishes to challenge a state court conviction by eventually seeking federal habeas

18

relief. Rather than filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Batres filed a

19

document seeking an extension of time to comply with federal filing deadlines

20

(the “Application”).

21

Under the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the

22

United States Constitution, federal courts may not issue advisory opinions. See

23

Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102, 102 S. Ct. 867, 869 (1981).

24

As Batres has not actually filed a federal habeas petition challenging his

25

conviction and/or sentence, there is no case or controversy before the Court, and

26

he essentially seeks an advisory opinion. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740,

27

118 S. Ct. 1694, 1698 (1998) (actual “controversy” in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action is

28

///

1

whether petitioner is entitled to have the conviction or sentence imposed by the

2

state court set aside).

3

By the Application, Batres asks the Court to decide prospectively whether

4

his habeas petition will be time-barred when filed at some unspecified future date,

5

without any adverse parties before it and without any information on which to

6

base any conclusion that such a filing properly will fall within the one-year

7

limitations period, even as extended. The Court cannot grant Batres the

8

prospective relief he seeks without offending the case or controversy requirement

9

of the Constitution.

10

Should Batres hereafter file his habeas petition and should the respondent

11

raise the one-year limitations period as a bar to relief, Batres may then make an

12

equitable tolling argument. At that point, the Court may consider whether the

13

Section 2244(d)(1) limitations period can be tolled.

14
15
16
17
18

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered
dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and
the Judgment herein on Batres.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

19
20
21

DATED: June 11, 2014

22

______________________________
JOHN A. KRONSTADT
United States District Judge

23
24

Presented by:

25
26
27

/S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM
FREDERICK F. MUMM
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2