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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?