UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 4, 2010
HERMAN T. JOHNSON, JR., PLAINTIFF,
B. VIKJORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT
Plaintiff Herman T. Johnson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was removed from state court by Defendants on January 11, 2006. (Doc. 2.) The complaint was screened by the Magistrate Judge on January 24, 2006, and findings and recommendations were issued recommending the federal claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim and the action be remanded back to state court. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action back to small claims court on January 30, 2006. (Doc. 7.) On March 16, 2006, the order was issued dismissing the federal claims, the action was remanded back to state court, and the case was closed. (Doc. 8.) Over four years later, on November 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed motions requesting a court order, an extension of time to respond, and default judgment. (Docs. 10, 12, 13.)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the federal claims were dismissed and the action was remanded to state court. Because this case has been dismissed and closed, the case-or-controversy requirement is not met such that this action provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff relief.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a court order, filed November 1, 2010, is HEREBY DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's motion for a 90-day extension of time, filed November 1, 2010, is HEREBY DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff's motion for default, filed November 1, 2010, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.