Opinion
Miscellaneous Case No. 00-299 (DRD).
March 22, 2001
Stanley R. Tucker, Movant pro se ipso.
OPINION
Stanley R. Tucker ("Tucker") is under parole supervision pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County. The date and nature of Tucker's state-court conviction are absent from the record. Tucker petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification of the judgment; his petition was denied on October 26, 1999. On October 30, 2000, Tucker filed a motion directed to the clerk of this court, supported by an affidavit, for an extension of time within which he might file an application for a writ of habeas corpus collaterally attacking the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2254. Tucker has never filed with this court an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
This court has jurisdiction only over justiciable cases or controversies, U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 429, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 2099, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998), and may not render advisory opinions, Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 2334, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975).
Once Tucker files an application for a writ of habeas corpus, any arguments he might make concerning the timeliness of the application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), or under the doctrine of equitable tolling, see Miller v. N.J. State Dep't of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 618-19 (3rd Cir. 1998), will be ripe for review, and this court will have jurisdiction to entertain and rule on them. Until that time, however, this court has no jurisdiction to dispose of Tucker's motion; — for it presents no case or controversy, and seeks instead merely an advisory opinion. Wawak v. Johnson, 2001 WL 194974, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 22, 2001) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction motion for extension of time to file application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254); In re Watson, 1997 WL 487431, at *1 (N.D.Cal. August 6, 1997) (same). See also, e.g., United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 162-164 (2nd Cir. 2000) ( per curiam) (holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 until such motion is actually filed); United States v. Chambliss, 145 F.3d 1334 (table), 1998 WL 246408, at *1 (6th Cir. May 4, 1998) (unpublished disposition) (same).
An appropriate order shall enter.