Royston v. Grounds

Filing 5

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/18/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ARLONZO D. ROYSTON,

9

Petitioner,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-2201 EMC (pr)

RANDY GROUNDS,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Respondent.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

Petitioner wishes to challenge his state court criminal conviction or sentence. Rather than

16

filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, he filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for

17

writ of habeas corpus, in which he requests additional time to file his federal habeas petition because

18

he had reduced access to the prison law library.

19

The Court cannot provide the requested extension of time on the habeas statute of limitations

20

deadline, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Under general principles derived from the "case or controversy"

21

requirement of Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, a federal court may not issue

22

advisory opinions. See United States v. Cook, 795 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (district court

23

erred in tolling statute of limitations as to future claims by persons not party to the case before the

24

court). Federal courts do not "'sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about

25

issues as to which there are not adverse parties before [them].'" Id. (quoting Princeton University v.

26

Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 (1982)). There is no concrete dispute for this Court to decide: a

27

prospective habeas petitioner in essence asks the Court to determine in advance whether his petition

28

for writ of habeas corpus will be time-barred if it is filed at some unspecified date in the future

1

which may or may not be within the one-year period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This Court

2

could not grant the requested relief without offending the Constitution's case or controversy

3

requirement.

4

Although Petitioner obtains no relief today, he is not forever barred from requesting relief.

5

He can make his tolling argument in the petition he eventually does file or he can wait until

6

Respondent moves to dismiss a habeas petition as untimely, or the Court orders him to explain why

7

his petition should not be dismissed as untimely. At that point, and not before then, the Court will

8

consider whether the statute of limitations should be tolled. See generally Holland v. Florida, 130

9

S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the habeas statute of
limitations period "only if he shows '(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' and prevented timely filing"). The request for an

12

extension of time is DENIED.

13
14

There is no case or controversy over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction. The action
is therefore DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close the file.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: June 18, 2012

19
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2