Braulio S. Garcia v. People of the State

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT CASE OR CONTROVERSY by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: (see document image for specifics). Based upon the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a § 2254 petition to seek relief from his current state custody. Any other pending motions are terminated and the clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

BRAULIO S. GARCIA,
Petitioner,

13
14

v.

15

PEOPLE OF THE STATE,

16

Respondent.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-06141 JGB (AN)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT
CASE OR CONTROVERSY

18

On August 5, 2014, Braulio S. Garcia, a state prisoner imprisoned at Wasco State

19

Prison, filed the pending petition requesting a 30-day continuance of time (“Petition”) [1],

20

presumably to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“§ 2254”). Garcia’s pending Petition does not raise any

22

habeas claims.

23

The United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases”

24

and “Controversies.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, --- U.S. ---, ---, 134 S. Ct. 2334,

25

2341 (2014) (citing U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.). In the § 2254 context, the underlying

26

“controversy” for Article III purposes is whether Petitioner “is entitled to federal habeas

27

relief setting aside his sentence or conviction obtained in the California courts.” Calderon

28

v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746, 118 S. Ct. 1694 (1998). Consequently, because Petitioner

1

has not filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction or sentence, this action

2

presents no case or controversy, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; see

3

also Smith v. Warden, No. EDCV 08-1684 VBF (RZ), 2008 WL 5103207, at *1-2 (C.D.

4

Cal. Dec. 1, 2008) (cited pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 36-3) (court lacked subject matter

5

jurisdiction to entertain state inmate’s request for tolling of the limitations period

6

governing § 2254 actions because the inmate had not filed a habeas petition, and

7

therefore, had “not properly initiated a ‘case’ or ‘controversy.’”); Grissom v. Barnes, No.

8

CV 13-3593 SJO (SS), 2013 WL 3053059, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2013) (also cited

9

pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 36-3) (motion requesting that the Court determine whether federal

10

habeas petition would be time-barred if filed failed to satisfy the case or controversy

11

requirement of Article III).

12

Further, in light of the fact the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction, this

13

action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time

14

that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); see also

15

Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003)

16

(“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court

17

contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack

18

of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted).

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
Page 2

1

Based upon the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to

2

Petitioner filing a § 2254 petition to seek relief from his current state custody. Any other

3

pending motions are terminated and the clerk shall close the file.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

DATED: August 22, 2014

8
9

JESUS G. BERNAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

10
11
12

_________________________
Arthur Nakazato
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3