Washington et al v. Fresno County Sheriff et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff Anthonia Washington's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Send Investigator to Fresno County Jail as to 8 and 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/21/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PERRY WASHINGTON, et al,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00129-AWI-SAB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF
ANTHONIA WASHINGTON’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
TO SEND INVESTIGATOR TO FRESNO
COUNTY JAIL

v.
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,
Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 8, 9)

16
17

On February 18, 2014, an order issued dismissing Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for

18 failure to state a claim and denying Plaintiff Anthonia Washington’s motions to produce Perry
19 Washington in Federal court, to proceed without Perry Washington’s signature, and to compel
20 discovery. (ECF No. 7.) On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff A. Washington filed motions to
21 reconsider the request for production of evidence and a motion for an investigator to be sent to
22 the Fresno County Jail. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)
23

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

24 relief the Court is bound by the requirement that, as a preliminary matter, it have before it an
25 actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,
26 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State,
27 Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case
28 or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of injury

1

1 in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy
2 requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its
3 existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998).
4 Since Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed there is no case or controversy before the Court
5 upon which relief can be granted.
6

Further, Plaintiff A. Washington is seeking injunctive relief for alleged violations of

7 Perry Washington’s rights. As Plaintiff A. Washington has been advised on several occasions,
8 she does not have standing to bring this action on behalf of Perry Washington. Accordingly
9 Plaintiff’s motion for an order to preserve evidence (ECF No. 8), and motion for an investigator
10 (ECF No. 9), filed February 19, 2014, are HEREBY DENIED.
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 21, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2