Solorio v. Johnson, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Change of Venue 11 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/25/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANSELMO SOLORIO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

JOHNSON et al.,

15

No. 1:15-cv-00657-DAD-EPG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
CHANGE OF VENUE
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 11)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Anselmo Solorio, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed several

19

complaints in this action alleging claims relating to, among other things, his ongoing state

20

criminal proceedings and the alleged use of excessive force by state officers against him while he

21

was in pretrial detention. (See Doc Nos. 1, 14, 17.) On January 15, 2016, after conducting an

22

initial review of plaintiff’s complaints, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order dismissing

23

plaintiff’s complaints with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 20.) That order also denied plaintiff’s

24

motion requesting a change of district (Doc. No. 13) and motion for court documents (Doc. No.

25

16). (Doc No. 20.)

26

Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and change of venue.

27

(Doc. No. 11.) In light of the previously filed order dismissing each of plaintiff’s complaints with

28

leave to amend (see Doc. No. 20), there is currently no operative pleading before the court and no
1

1

actual case or controversy before the court. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102,

2

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454

3

U.S. 464, 471, (1982). To satisfy the case or controversy requirement, the party invoking a

4

court’s jurisdiction must “show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as

5

a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant, and that the injury fairly can be traced

6

to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Valley Forge

7

Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 472. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A federal

8

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

9

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

10

the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

11

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, and for the reasons set forth in the prior order

12

addressing plaintiff’s request for a change of venue with respect to his pending state criminal case

13

(see Doc. No. 20 at 3–4), plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and a change of venue is

14

DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated:

January 25, 2016
DALE A. DROZD

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2