Johnson v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 79 Motion for a Court Order, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/27/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:09-cv–1264-AWI-BAM PC

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A COURT ORDER

v.
L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

(ECF No. 79)

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2012, an order issued

17

adopting the findings and recommendations and granting Defendants’ motion for summary

18

judgment. (ECF No. 77.) Judgment was entered and this action was closed. (ECF No. 78.) On

19

January 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order allowing him daily access to the law

20

library. (ECF No. 79.)

21

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the Court is bound by the requirement

22

that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v.

23

Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of

24

Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

25

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. The case or controversy

26

requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that judgment has been entered in favor of Defendants

27

and the case has been closed. Because this case has been closed, the case-or-controversy

28

requirement is not met such that this action provides no basis upon which this court can issue the
1

1
2

requested order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a court order, filed January 10, 2012, is HEREBY

3

DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated:
0m8i78

April 27, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2