Vega v. Chokatos et al

Filing 10

ORDER Re Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 7/22/11. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ANGEL LOUIS VEGA,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01625-SMS PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

v.
(ECF No. 9)

12

JHON CHOKATOS, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Angel Louis Vega (“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 July 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

17

motion requesting clarification of the order denying his motion for summary judgment as premature.

18

(ECF No. 9.)

19

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

20

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

21

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

22

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

23

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

24

no power to hear the matter in question. Id.

25

At this point in time, there is no case or controversy before the court, and the court has no

26

jurisdiction to grant summary judgment. The court has not screened the complaint, and defendants

27

have not been served. Until and unless the court finds that plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for

28

relief under section 1983 and the defendants against whom the claims are stated have been served
1

1

and made an appearance in this action, the court will not have jurisdiction to issue any orders

2

awarding the relief plaintiff seeks.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

July 22, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2