From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Silva v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Jul 19, 2019
No. CV 19-06130-MWF (DFM) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2019)

Opinion

No. CV 19-06130-MWF (DFM)

07-19-2019

MARTIN L. SILVA, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.


Order Summarily Dismissing Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction

Martin L. Silva, a state prisoner at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, apparently wishes to challenge a California state-court conviction by seeking federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Instead of filing a habeas corpus petition, Silva filed a request to "toll petitioner's time pending the California Supreme Court's decision." Dkt. 1.

Federal courts are limited in the exercise of their judicial power to "cases" or "controversies." U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. A justiciable case or controversy does not include a dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937). The case must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character. See id. at 241. Courts do not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions. See Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 (1982). Nor may a federal court toll the statute of limitations with respect to claims not yet filed. See United States v. Cook, 795 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Silva's pure tolling motion seeks relief a federal court cannot grant without violating the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982); Warren v. Harrison, 244 Fed. App'x 831, 832 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding state prisoner's request for extension of time did not constitute habeas petitions for purposes of tolling AEDPA's one-year limitations period). Nor does it set forth any facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Silva's tolling request for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Hernandez, 431 F. App'x 813, 814 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding it would be premature to consider petitioner's tolling motion because he had not filed a federal habeas petition).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Silva's tolling request is DENIED and this matter be administratively closed. Date: July 19, 2019

/s/_________

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD

United States District Judge Presented by: /s/_________
DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK
United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Silva v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Jul 19, 2019
No. CV 19-06130-MWF (DFM) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2019)
Case details for

Silva v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN L. SILVA, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 19, 2019

Citations

No. CV 19-06130-MWF (DFM) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2019)