Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 9 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/6/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–00080-LJO-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
(ECF No. 9)

12
13

Y. A. YATES, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 4, 2011, an order issued dismissing

17

Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 18. Currently

18

before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, filed March 11, 2011.

19

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for injunctive

20

relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual

21

case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983);

22

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464,

23

471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before

24

it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and

25

redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party

26

invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens

27

for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). Requests for prospective relief are

28

further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires
1

1

that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

2

correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

3

violation of the Federal right.”

4

Since Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed there is no case or controversy before the

5

Court upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

6

order, filed March 11, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48

January 6, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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