Matthew T Queen v. Fred Foulk et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by District Judge Christina A. Snyder. Because petitioner has not actually filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action, there is no case or controversy to be heard. Consequently, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the Extension Request. See order for details. (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

) Case No. EDCV 13-802 CAS(JC)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
WARDEN (A) FRED FOULK, et al., )
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________
MATTHEW T. QUEEN,

On April 30, 2013, petitioner Matthew T. Queen (“petitioner”), a California

18 state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by signing and submitting a
19 Motion for Extension of Time to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus
20 challenging his conviction in Riverside County Superior Court Case No.
21 RIF 127080 (“Extension Motion”). Petitioner has not, however, filed a federal
22 petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. For the reasons discussed herein,
23 this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
24

The exercise of federal jurisdiction under the Constitution depends on the

25 existence of a case or controversy. United States Nat’l Bank v. Independent Ins.
26 Agents of America, Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993); Johnson v. Weinberger, 851
27 F.2d 233, 235 (9th Cir. 1988) (Article III, Section 2 of the United States
28 Constitution restricts adjudication in federal courts to cases and controversies). A

1 case or controversy exists when one party demonstrates that it has suffered injury2 in-fact which fairly can be traced to acts or omissions of the second party and when
3 there is a substantial likelihood that the relief requested will redress the injury
4 claimed. Johnson, 851 F.2d at 235.
5

A federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider matters relating to a habeas

6 petition unless and until such a petition is actually filed because there otherwise is
7 no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. See
8 Ford v. Warden, 2008 WL 2676842 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (Constitution’s “case or
9 controversy” jurisdictional requirement precludes giving of advisory opinion that
10 statute of limitations will not bar anticipated, but not yet filed, federal habeas
11 petition); United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 163 (2d Cir. 2000) (granting
12 government motion to dismiss appeal from order denying motion to submit out of
13 time petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because no case or controversy in absence of
14 filing of petition); Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746-49 (1998) (no “case or
15 controversy” where prisoners sought declaratory relief to determine the time limits
16 that would govern future habeas actions); see also United States v. Cook, 795 F.2d
17 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (in Fair Labor Standards Act case, district court erred by
18 tolling statute of limitations in advance of the filing of potentially untimely
19 claims).
20

Here, because petitioner has not actually filed a federal petition for writ of

21 habeas corpus in this action, there is no case or controversy to be heard.
22 Consequently, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the Extension Request.
23

For the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: May 7, 2013

26
27

_______________________________________

28

HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2