ORDER DENYING:

1. MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT [Doc. 35]; and

2. REQUEST FOR HEARING DATE [Doc. 37].

RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court now is Plaintiff WILLIAM L. NIMBLE, a state prisoner proceeding in pro per, having filed a "Motion for Declaratory Judgment" (doc. 35) and a corresponding Request for Hearing (doc. 37). Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) California State prisoners have a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment in the grievance procedures established in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Article 8, and (2) prison administrative staff have a legal duty to process prisoner's grievances as defined by California law and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a).

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on September 28, 2018. (Doc. 35.) The Motion contains no factual allegations, only legal authorities which purportedly support the legal conclusions set forth in the Motion. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 23, 2018, which Defendants have not yet answered. (Doc. 46.)

I. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

The Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA") provides: "In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). However, it does not authorize this Court to issue an advisory opinion regarding a defendant's alleged violation of a federal statute. "[T]he federal courts established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution do not render advisory opinions." United Public Workers of American (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89. The DJA does not grant litigants an absolute right to a legal determination. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965). In fact, the court may, after a full consideration of the merits, exercise its discretion to refuse to grant declaratory relief because the state of the record before the Court is inadequate to support the extent of relief sought. Nat'l Automatic laundry & Cleaning Council v. Schultz, 443 F.2d 689, 703 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

At the time this Motion was filed, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint had been answered by several named Defendants. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff has recently filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 46.) The factual and legal disputes between the parties are still being crystallized. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on September 28, 2018. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff, without any factual support, seeks declarations from the Court that: (1) California state prisoners have a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment in the grievance procedures established by the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Article 8; and (2) State prison administrative staff has a legal duty to process prisoner's grievances as defined by state law and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In the context of this lawsuit with the record not yet fully developed, Plaintiff's Motion is more appropriately construed as a request for an advisory opinion, and not as a request for a judgment. As it is improper for the Court to issue an advisory opinion pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment is DENIED. (Doc. 35.)

II. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A HEARING

Plaintiff requests that the Court set a hearing on his Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (Doc. 37.) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), "[a] judge may, in the judge's discretion, decide a motion without oral argument." The Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary to decide Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment and exercises its discretion to decide the Motion solely on the pleadings.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. (Doc. 37.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.