United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A HABEAS PETITION AND
CLOSING THE CASE
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a pro se case, which the Clerk of the Court has designated as
a habeas corpus action. Petitioner Darnell Miller commenced
this action by filing a motion for extension of time to file
a habeas corpus petition. For the reasons that follow, the
motion will be denied.
what can be gleaned from the motion, Petitioner says that in
2014 he was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first
and second degrees, see M.C.L. §§ 750.520b
and 750.520c, unlawful imprisonment, see
M.C.L.§ 750.349b, felonious assault, see
M.C.L.§ 750.82, and possession of less than twenty-five
grams of a controlled substance, see M.C.L. §
333.7403(2)(a)(v). He was sentenced him to thirty to fifty
years for the criminal-sexual-conduct convictions and ten to
fifteen years in prison for the assault and narcotics
convictions. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed
Petitioner's convictions, see People v. Miller,
No. 322711, 2015 WL 6965103 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2015),
and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
See People v. Miller, 878 N.W.2d 859 (2016).
August 29, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of
time. The Clerk opened a habeas case based on the motion. In
the motion, Petitioner seeks an order granting him sixty
months in which to file a habeas petition challenging his
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's motion.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently pointed
Article III of the U.S. Constitution empowers federal courts
to hear “Cases” or “Controversies, ”
nothing more. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; see Lexmark
Int'l., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., ___
U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014). And
“no justiciable ‘controversy' exists when
parties ... ask for an advisory opinion.”
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516, 127 S.Ct.
1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007). This prohibition covers a
party's-in truth a non-litigant's-request for an
“opinion[ ] advising what the law would be upon a
hypothetical state of facts.” Chafin v.
Chafin, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 1023, 185 L.Ed.2d
1 (2013) (quotation omitted).
United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 420 (6th
Petitioner has a right to seek collateral review of his state
convictions in federal court, see 28 U.S.C. §
2254, he has not yet filed a habeas petition under §
2254. Until he files a petition, “no case of
controversy generally exists before an actual § 2254
petition is filed.” United States v. Thomas,
713 F.3d 165, 168 (3d Cir. 2013).
while some pro se extension motions may have sufficient
details about the proposed pleading that a district court
could fairly construe the motion as a pleading,
Petitioner's motion is vague. He has not clearly
described the basis for his challenge to his state
convictions. The Court therefore declines to treat his motion
as a § 2254 action.
reasons stated above, Petitioner's motion for an
extension of ...