Summary
dismissing for want of jurisdiction motion for extension of time to file application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Summary of this case from In re TuckerOpinion
3:01-CV-305-M.
February 23, 2001
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type Case: This is a motion for extension of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Parties: Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Ellis I Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) in Huntsville, Texas. Respondent is Gary Johnson, Director of the TDCJ-ID. No process has been issued in this case.
Statement of the Case: Rather than submitting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner has filed a motion seeking an extension of the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) for filing a habeas petition. He states that he needs to file a successive petition in state court before he can seek habeas relief in this court. Petitioner is seeking to challenge aggravated assault convictions from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Petitioner has filed one prior federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his aggravated assault convictions. See Wawak v. Johnson, 3:99cv2550-X. On March 22, 2000, the district court adopted the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied the petition on the merits. Petitioner did not appeal.
Findings and Conclusions: Petitioner's motion for an extension of time of the one-year statute of limitations does not present a case or controversy. See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 1215, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) (presenting a justiciable case or controversy is a jurisdictional requirement which the court has an obligation to examine sua sponte); see also U.S. v. One 18th Century Colombian Monstrance, 797 F.2d 1370, 1374 (5th Cir. 1986),cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1014 (1987); United States v. Cook, 795 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (district court erred in tolling statute of limitations as to future claims by persons not party to the case before the court). Federal courts do not "`sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not adverse parties before [them].'" Cook, 795 F.2d at 994 (quoting Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102, 102 S.Ct. 867, 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982)); see also North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (A federal court does not have the power "to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.").
Petitioner is requesting an advisory opinion. There is no adverse party before this court. Nor is there a concrete dispute for this court to decide. The motion for extension of time in essence asks the court to determine in advance whether the petition will be time-barred, if it is filed at some unspecified date in the future, and whether equitable tolling may be applicable to extend the limitation period. This court cannot grant the relief that Petitioner requests without offending the Constitution's case or controversy requirement. Moreover, Unless the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals first grants Petitioner leave to file a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the same.Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Therefore, Petitioner's motion for extension of time should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION:
The court cannot interpret Petitioner's motion as commencing a habeas corpus action. Rule 2(a) and (c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that an application for writ of habeas corpus shall be in the form of a petition which specifies each ground for relief which is available to the petitioner and the factual basis for each ground for relief. Petitioner's motion only requests additional time to file a petition and, thus, cannot be construed as the petition itself.
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a federal habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Petitioner.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.