Sterling K. Blanche v. D. Baughman

Filing 3

ORDER by Judge Christina A. Snyder Denying 1 Request for Enlargement of Time to File Habeas Petition and Administratively Closing Matter. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Petitioner's request for enlargement of time is denied and this matter be administratively closed. (see document for details). (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (dro)

1
2
3

JS-6

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STERLING K. BLANCHE,

12

Petitioner,

13

vs.

14
15

D. BAUGHMAN, Warden

16

Respondent.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 16-06771 CAS (KES)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO FILE HABEAS PETITION
AND ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSING MATTER

18
Petitioner, a California state prisoner who currently is incarcerated at

19
20

Folsom State Prison in Sacramento, California has filed a request for an

21

unspecified extension of time to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 (Dkt.

22

1.) According to Petitioner, he suffers from a mental disability that affects his

23

thought process and needs more time to research and prepare a petition.

24

The timely filing of a federal habeas petitioner is not jurisdictional, but

25

rather is subject to statutory tolling and equitable tolling if the petitioner can

26

1

27
28

The Court Clerk is directed to send Petitioner instructions and a form for
filing a “Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody.”

1

show entitlement. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 634 (2010). Presently,

2

however, Petitioner’s prospective request to extend his filing deadline must be

3

denied.

4

Because Petitioner has not yet filed a federal petition, there are no

5

adverse parties before the Court and there is no concrete dispute for this Court

6

to decide. Petitioner’s request in effect seeks an advisory opinion regarding

7

whether Petitioner’s federal habeas petition will be time-barred (a) if the

8

petition is filed at some unspecified future date which may or may not be

9

within the one-year limitation period established by 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1), (b) if

10

the State then raises the time bar as a defense, and (c) if Petitioner submits

11

evidence supporting a claim to statutory or equitable tolling. Thus the request

12

seeks relief that the Court could not grant without violating the “case or

13

controversy” requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the United States

14

Constitution. See Princeton University v. Schmid, 355 U.S. 100, 102 (1981)

15

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

16

United States Constitution, federal courts may not issue advisory opinions);

17

see also Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740. 746 (1998) (actual “controversy”

18

in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action is whether petitioner is entitled to have the

19

conviction or sentence imposed by the state court set aside); Corocon v. Tilton,

20

2008 WL 816682, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2008) (the Constitution’s “case or

21

controversy” requirement precludes courts from granting advisory opinions

22

addressing equitable tolling of anticipated but not yet filed habeas corpus

23

petitions; Ford v. Warden, 2008 WL 2676842, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2008)

24

(same).

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for

2

enlargement of time is denied and this matter be administratively closed.

3
4

DATED: September 15, 2016

5
_________________________________
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9

Presented by:

10
11
12
13

_________________________________
KAREN E. SCOTT
United States Magistrate Judge

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