Opinion
Case No. EDCV 17-01354 SJO (RAO)
05-01-2018
DANIEL STANLEY SAITTA, Petitioner, v. DANIEL PARAMO, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On July 6, 2017, Petitioner Daniel Stanley Saitta ("Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an untitled letter asking the District Court to order the San Bernardino County Superior Court to hand over a set of his trial records ("Letter"). (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) The Letter states that a correctional officer at the facility where Petitioner is presently incarcerated tossed his trial records in the trash. (Id.) The Clerk of the Court construed Petitioner's Letter as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See generally case docket.) For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's request is denied, and this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
Under the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, federal courts may not decide hypothetical issues or render advisory opinions. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1982) (Article III "limits the judicial power" of courts "to the resolution of 'cases' and 'controversies'"). As Petitioner has not actually filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction and/or sentence, there is no "case or controversy" presented to the Court and thus no concrete dispute for this Court to decide. See Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 207-08, 123 S. Ct. 1398, 155 L. Ed. 2d 363 (2003) (a habeas action begins with the filing of an application for habeas corpus relief). Accordingly, the Court cannot grant the relief Petitioner seeks without violating the "case or controversy" requirement of the Constitution. See Bjorn v. Warden, No. C 09-0714 JSW (PR), 2009 WL 1392089 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (holding that under "case or controversy" requirement, federal court cannot grant petitioner's request where no petition has been filed).
As there is no case or controversy over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. DATED: May 1, 2018
/s/_________
S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE