Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01423/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01423-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re. JOSEPH BROCKETT,

Petitioner.

 /

No. C 06-1423 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Joseph Brockett wishes to challenge his state court criminal conviction. Rather than filing

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

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

because he had reduced access to his materials for a while and is pursuing a habeas petition in

state court. 

The court cannot provide the requested extension of time on the habeas statute of

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

or controversy" requirement of Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, a federal

court may not issue advisory opinions. See 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].'" Id.

(quoting Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 (1982)). There is no concrete

dispute for this court to decide: Brockett's request in essence asks the court to determine in

advance whether his petition for writ of habeas corpus will be time-barred if it is filed at some

unspecified date in the future which may or may not be within the one-year period prescribed

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This court could not grant the requested relief without offending the

Case 3:06-cv-01423-SI Document 4 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Constitution's case or controversy requirement. Although Brockett obtains no relief today, he

is not forever barred from requesting relief. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler),

128 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1997) (Section 2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling, although

such tolling will not be available in most cases because extensions of time should only be

granted if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file a

petition on time), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1099, and cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled

in part on other grounds by Calderon v. United States District Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th

Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060 (1999). If and when Brockett files a late

habeas petition, he may make his tolling argument. At that point, and not before then, the court

will consider whether the statute of limitations should be tolled. The request for an extension

of time is DENIED. (Docket # 1 and # 3.) 

There is no case or controversy over which the court may exercise jurisdiction. The

action is therefore DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01423-SI Document 4 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2