Pezant v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/9/12: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JASON R. PEZANT,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–564-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
(ECF No. 9)

12
13

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Jason R. Pezant is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 6, 2011. By

17

separate order the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rules

18

of Civil Procedure 8 and 18. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

19

restraining order, filed August 12, 2011.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). Requests for prospective relief are
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

violation of the Federal right.”

5

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

6

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

7

order, filed August 12, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

January 9, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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