United States District Court, C.D. California
February 4, 2015
JOSEPH D. LYLES, Petitioner,
MR. SANDHU, et al., Respondents
Joseph D. Lyles, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gardena, CA.
DAVID O. CARTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DAVID O. CARTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Joseph D. Lyles (" Petitioner") has filed a document entitled " Notice of Motion to Extend Time to File Documents" (the " Motion"). (Dkt. No. 1). Although Petitioner states that he intends to file a " Buyers incidental damages for seller's breach [sic], " Petitioner actually seeks an extension of time to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Motion at 1-2). The Court presumes that Petitioner seeks this extension to avoid the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). However, Petitioner has not actually filed a habeas petition.
The Motion consists of five confusing paragraphs, and Petitioner does not state his grounds for relief. (See Motion at 1-2). Although Petitioner requests the extension in order to " get other affidavits and file complete paperwork, " Petitioner does not indicate when and where he was convicted or the substance of any state appellate or post-conviction relief he has sought. (Id.). Even without this required information, however, the Court has determined that the relief requested cannot be granted for the reasons set forth below.
Under the " case or controversy" requirement of the United States Constitution, federal courts may not issue advisory opinions. Chafin v. Chafin, U.S., 133 S.Ct. 1017, 1023, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (citation omitted). As Petitioner has not actually filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction or sentence, there are no adverse parties before the Court and there is no concrete dispute for the Court to decide. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746, 118 S.Ct. 1694, 140 L.Ed.2d 970 (1998) (actual " controversy" in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action is whether petitioner is entitled to have his state-imposed conviction or sentence set aside). Petitioner essentially seeks an advisory opinion regarding the potential untimeliness of any federal habeas petition he might file in the future. Thus, the Motion seeks relief that the Court cannot grant without violating the " case or controversy" requirement.
In view of Petitioner's assertion that he seeks business records related to items " that the victim did not report as taken during a[n] alleged robbery, " it may be that Petitioner seeks an order staying his case so that he can return to state court and exhaust his state remedies. (See Petition at 2). Indeed, district courts are empowered to stay and abey federal habeas actions under certain conditions. See, e.g., King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1138-41 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the Court cannot determine whether Petitioner would be entitled to a stay at this stage of the proceedings. Should Petitioner subsequently file an actual habeas petition, he may seek a stay of the petition at that time. The Court would then be presented with an actual case or controversy and could rule on Petitioner's request.
Consistent with the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion is DENIED and that Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on Petitioner at his current address of record.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Pursuant to the Court's Order Denying Motion for Extension of Time and Dismissing Action Without Prejudice,
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice.