Daniel A. Martinez v. Warden

Filing 3

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, DISMISSING MATTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha.Thus, this Court ORDERS Judgment be entered: (1) DENYING Motion for Extension of Time; (2) summarily DISMISSING the Action without prejudice; and (3) DENYING the Certificate of Appealability. #1 [See document for details.] (es)

Case 2:21-cv-06989-FLA-MAR Document 3 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
DANIEL A. MARTINEZ,

12

Case No. 2:21-cv-6989-FLA (MAR)

Petitioner,

13
v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME, DISMISSING
MATTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

WARDEN,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18
19

I.

20

INTRODUCTION

21

Daniel A. Martinez (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner, has constructively

22

filed1 a letter requesting an extension of time for filing his federal habeas petition.

23

ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 1. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s Motion

24

for an Extension of Time is denied, and the action is dismissed without prejudice.

25

///

26

///

27

1

28

Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to
court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v.
Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).

Case 2:21-cv-06989-FLA-MAR Document 3 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:5

1

II.

2

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

3

On April 15, 2020, the California Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s state

4

habeas petition. Dkt. 1 at 1. On August 24, 2021, Petitioner constructively filed the

5

instant letter with the Court requesting an extension of time for which to file his

6

federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id.

7

III.

8

DISCUSSION

9

A.

THE COURT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE

10

MOTION BEFORE THE PETITION IS FILED2

11

1.

12

Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution sets forth the “case or

Applicable law

13

controversy” requirement. See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) (“Under

14

Article III, § 2, of the Constitution, the federal courts have jurisdiction over this

15

dispute between appellants and appellees only if it is a ‘case’ or ‘controversy.’”). “This

16

is a ‘bedrock requirement.’” Id. (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans

17

United for Separate of Church and State Inc, Inc. 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982)). “No

18

principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of

19

government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual

20

cases or controversies.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37

21

(1976). In the context of a habeas action, “a habeas suit begins with the filing of an

22

application for habeas corpus relief – the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil

23

case.” Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 208 (2003); see also Calderon v. Ashmus,

24

523 U.S. 740, 746–49 (1998) (no “case or controversy” where prisoners sought

25

declaratory relief to determine time limits that would govern future habeas actions).

26
27
28

2

While the Court cannot rule on Petitioner’s Motion for an Extension of Time because there is no
“case or controversy” presently before the Court in this matter, if there were a petition, the Court
would be able to.

2

Case 2:21-cv-06989-FLA-MAR Document 3 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:6

1

2.

Analysis

2

Here, Petitioner’s Motion, in effect, seeks an advisory opinion regarding

3

whether his federal habeas petition will be time-barred if: (a) the petition is filed at

4

some unspecified date in the future, which may or may not be within the statute of

5

limitations, and (b) Respondent raises the statute of limitations as an affirmative

6

defense. 3 As such, it seeks relief which the Court cannot grant without violating the

7

“case or controversy” requirement of Article III, section 2, of the United States

8

Constitution. See, e.g., In re Ortiz, No. 2:10-2013-CJC (RNB), 2010 WL 1170484, at

9

*1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2010); Corcoran v. Tilton, 2008 WL 816682 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25,

10

2008); In re Brockett, 2006 WL 1329675 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006); Flores v.

11

California, 2002 WL 1226853 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2002); In re Burgess, 2001 WL

12

603609 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2001); see also United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164

13

(2d Cir. 2000) (holding that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness

14

of a section 2255 petition until a petition actually is filed); United States v. Clarke,

15

1998 WL 91069, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 24, 1998) (denying request for extension of

16

limitations period to file section 2255 motion).

17

If Petitioner files a federal habeas petition after the statute of limitations has

18

expired and if Respondent raises the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, it

19

will be incumbent on Petitioner to demonstrate that the Petition is not subject to

20

dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. Without a protective petition on file,

21

these issues cannot be resolved at this time in the context of this motion. 4 As such,

22

the motion is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Further,

23
24
25
26
27
28

3

See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (explaining that option of filing protective
petition is designed to avoid “predicament” of “a ‘petitioner trying in good faith to exhaust state
remedies may litigate in state court for years only to find out at the end that he was never properly
filed,’ and thus that his federal habeas petition is time barred”).
4
If and when Petitioner files a habeas petition in this Court, this Court can consider whether
Petitioner is entitled to a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (“Rhines Stay”) or
Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Kelly Stay”) and whether statutory tolling
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) or equitable tolling is warranted.

3

Case 2:21-cv-06989-FLA-MAR Document 3 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:7

1

the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

2

constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a

3

certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed.

4

R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

5

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

6

IV.

7

ORDER

8

Thus, this Court ORDERS Judgment be entered:

9

(1) DENYING Motion for Extension of Time;

10

(2) summarily DISMISSING the Action without prejudice; and

11

(3) DENYING the Certificate of Appealability.

12
13

Dated: September 8, 2021

14
15

FERNANDO L. AENLL -ROCHA
FERNAN
AENLLE
United States District Judge

16
17

Presented by:

18
19
20

MARGO A. ROCCONI
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4