William M. Bryson, Jr. v. Gerson

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 2 Motion for a Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/17/2014. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM M. BRYSON, Jr., 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:13-cv-0879-LJO-MJS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, v. (ECF No. 2) SUSAN B. GERSON, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 On June 10, 2013, William M. Bryson (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”). (Compl., ECF 1.) On March 7, 2014, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a claim under FOIA against Defendant Gerson. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff had earlier, on June 24, 2013, filed a motion for a protective order. (Mot., ECF No. 2.) There Plaintiff alleged that prison staff had removed his property, opened 24 his legal mail, failed to address his grievances, subjected him to additional security 25 searches, and refused to mail some of his legal mail. (Mot. at 2-4.) Plaintiff asked the 26 27 Court to order the warden to stop taking Plaintiff’s legal materials and to prevent the warden from placing Plaintiff in special housing. (Mot. at 4.) 28 1 1 The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this action and to 2 Plaintiff’s claim arising from the government’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA 3 request. See e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 4 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes 5 the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal 6 jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted); American 7 Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) 8 (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (citation 9 and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court does not have jurisdiction to direct the 10 warden, who is not a party to this action, to stop subjecting Plaintiff to certain actions 11 which are not the subject of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 12 Accordingly, since the Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff his 13 requested relief, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 17, 2014 /s/ 17 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?