ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

Movant is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel. On January 25, 2018, the court dismissed his § 2255 motion with leave to amend within 60 days. ECF No. 68. Movant now seeks an extension of time to file an amended § 2255 motion. ECF No. 69. He also moves to compel his attorney to provide him with a copy of his case file. Id. For the reasons stated below, both motions are denied.

The motion for an extension of time must be denied because the court cannot rule on the timeliness of a § 2255 motion until one is filed. See United States v. Madriz, No. 1:13-cr-175-1-LJO, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19412, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Feb 10, 2017) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider extending the time for movant's filing "unless and until such a petition is actually filed, because there otherwise is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution."). The timeliness of any § 2255 motion, therefore, will be evaluated only in the event movant actual files such an amended motion.

Movant's request for an order compelling his attorney to provide him with a copy of his case file is also denied. Attached to movant's motion is a copy of an October 24, 2017 letter from movant's attorney seeking clarification as to where the case file should be sent. ECF No. 69 at 19. Movant does not state whether he ever responded to this request for clarification. Id. at 16. On this record, an order granting movant's motion to compel would be premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion for an extension of time and motion to compel (ECF No. 69) are denied without prejudice.