United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Special Order 3-251, this habeas case has been
automatically referred for findings, conclusions, and
recommendation. Before the Court is the movant's
Motion for Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal,
received on May 15, 2018 (doc. 2),  which expressly seeks a
45-day extension of time, until June 27, 2018, to file a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Based on the relevant
findings and applicable law, this proceeding should be
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
Parra (Movant), a federal prisoner, was convicted of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine and sentenced to 108 months' imprisonment
on May 30, 2017. (See doc. 681.) He argues that the
one-year statute of limitations that applies to § 2255
motions is not a jurisdictional bar, and that extensions of
time may therefore be granted. (See 3:18-CV-1244-D,
doc. 2.) He claims that he needs additional time to prepare
his § 2255 motion because his transfer between prison
facilities limited his access to his legal materials.
(See id.) He did not include a proposed § 2255
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is
not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(citations omitted). They “must presume that a suit
lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking
the federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). They have
“a continuing obligation to examine the basis for
jurisdiction.” See MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy
Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held
that a district court lacks jurisdiction over a motion for
extension of time to file a § 2255 motion if it is not
accompanied by a § 2255 motion that presents claims for
post-conviction relief. See United States v.
Shipman, 61 Fed.Appx. 919 (5th Cir. 2003). Without a
§ 2255 motion, “there is no case or custody to be
heard, and any opinion . . .would be merely advisory.”
Id., quoting United States v. Leon, 203
F.3d 162, 163 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Gray v.
Quarterman, No. 3:08-CV-2068-D, 2008 WL 5385010 (N.D.
Tex. Dec. 23, 2008) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a
motion for an extension of time to file a federal writ of
habeas corpus filed solely in an attempt to toll the statute
of limitations because federal courts do not decide
hypothetical issues or give advisory opinions); United
States v. Williams, No. 3:04-CR-193-M, 2007 WL 1670167
(N.D. Tex. June 4, 2007) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction
a motion for extension of time to file a § 2255 motion
for the same reasons). Accordingly, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to rule on the motion for extension of
time to file a § 2255 motion.
action should be DISMISSED for want of
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO
of these findings, conclusions and recommendation shall be
served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any
party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions
and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy See 28
USC § 636(b)(1); Fed R Civ P 72(b) In order to be
specific an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made state the basis for
the objection and specify the place in the magistrate
judge's findings conclusions and recommendation where the
disputed determination is found An objection that merely
incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before
the magistrate judge is not specific Failure to file specific
written objections will bar the aggrieved party from
appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court except upon grounds of plain error See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th
 Unless otherwise indicated, all
subsequent document numbers refer to the docket number
assigned in the underlying criminal action, ...