Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richard Jackson v. Mike Palombo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 2, 2012

RICHARD JACKSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIKE PALOMBO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S INFORMATIONAL NOTICES (Docs. 34, 40, 42)

Plaintiff Richard Jackson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 23, 2010. This action is proceeding against Defendants Niino and Palmbo on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim.

On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Medical Board Investigation," pertaining to the outcome of a complaint Plaintiff filed. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Prison Modified Lockdown," in which Plaintiff informs the Court that Kern Valley State Prison is on lockdown and there is no law library access. Finally, on March 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Possible Mail Tampering Peace Officers Misconduct (of Retaliation)," in which Plaintiff informs the Court that he is being harassed and his mail may be intercepted as a result.

The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this action and to Plaintiff's claim for damages arising from an incident of alleged excessive force on July 9, 2009. See e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) ("[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.") (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) ("[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff's filings are essentially informational notices of events or incidences and they do not request any specific relief to which Plaintiff might arguably be entitled to in this action.

Therefore, Plaintiff's informational notices filed on December 22, 2011, March 7, 2012, and March 22, 2012, are HEREBY ORDERED DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120502

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.