Gutierrez v. Gutierrez

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion for Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/4/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

G. J. GUTIERREZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-00421-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COURT ORDER
(Doc. 47.)

A. GUTIERREZ,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

G. J. Gutierrez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18
19
20
21
22

23

BACKGROUND

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the initial Complaint filed by
Plaintiff on March 22, 2013, against defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) A. Gutierrez, for use
of excessive force and failure to protect Plaintiff.

(Doc. 1.)

Plaintiff has consented to

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties
have appeared. (Doc. 5.)
On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing the supervision of

24
25

C/O Kennedy at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP). (Doc. 10.)

26

II.

MOTION FOR COURT ORDER

27

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

28

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
1

1

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

2

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of

3

Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or

4

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal

5

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

6

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

7

before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

8

1985).

9

Plaintiff seeks a court order directing staff at PVSP to supervise C/O Kennedy, who

10

allegedly threatened to tamper with Plaintiff’s mail, out of retaliation for Plaintiff filing this

11

civil lawsuit. Such an order would not remedy any of the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint,

12

which arise from alleged acts of excessive force and failure to protect Plaintiff by C/O A.

13

Gutierrez, the sole defendant in this action. Therefore, the court has no power to hear the

14

matter in question, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

15

III.

16
17

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a court

order directing prison staff to supervise C/O Kennedy, is DENIED.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 4, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2