Opinion
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge
Eric D. Donaldson (hereinafter "Petitioner), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, apparently wishes to challenge his state court conviction by seeking federal habeas relief. Rather than filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner filed a document requesting an extension of time to file a federal writ of habeas corpus ("Request"). By the Request, he apparently seeks an unlimited extension of the one-year limitations period, under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1), for filing a federal habeas petition. Petitioner does not indicate in this Request when he was convicted and whether his federal habeas claims have been exhausted. However, even without this requisite information, the Court has determined that the relief requested cannot be granted.
Under the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, federal courts may not issue advisory opinions. See Princeton University v. Schmid , 455 U.S. 100, 102, 102 S.Ct. 867, 869 (1981). As Petitioner has not actually filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction and/or sentence, there is no case or controversy before the Court, and he essentially seeks an advisory opinion. See Calderon v. Ashmus , 523 U.S. 740, 118 S.Ct. 1694, 1698 (1998) (actual "controversy" in 28 U.S.C. §2254 action is whether petitioner is entitled to have the conviction or sentence imposed by the state court set aside).
By the Request, Petitioner asks the Court to decide prospectively whether his habeas petition will be time-barred when filed at some unspecified future date, without any adverse parties before it and without any information on which to base any conclusion that such a filing properly will fall within the one-year limitations period, even as extended. The Court cannot grant Petitioner the prospective relief he seeks without offending the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.