Broussard v. Munoz, et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 16 Motion for a Court Order and GRANTING Motion for an Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/27/2012. Thirty-Day Deadline to Submit Amended Complaint. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR.,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–01276-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A COURT ORDER AND GRANTING MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
LISA A. MUNOZ, et al.,

(ECF No. 16)
13

Defendants.
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

14
/
15
16

Plaintiff Curley John Broussard, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 10, 2012, an order

18

issued dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

19

On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief and a thirty day extension of

20

time to file an amended complaint. The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion for an

21

extension of time to file his amended complaint.

22

Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison officials to place Plaintiff in Cell 1411 where

23

he and other inmates were assisting each other with legal work, “remove all correctional staff in

24

conflict of interest to their duty of safety and security,” and return Plaintiff’s legal property. (Motion

25

to Return Property 2, ECF No. 16.) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in

26

considering a request for injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a

27

preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461

28

U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for
1

1

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court

2

does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question.

3

Id. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s

4

case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of

5

establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct.

6

1003 (1998). Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the

7

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly

8

drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least

9

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Since Plaintiff’s complaint

10

has been dismissed there is no case or controversy before the Court upon which relief can be granted.

11
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order is denied, without prejudice; and

14

2.

Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which

15

to file an amended complaint.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

August 27, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2