UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 14, 2012
MONTE L. HANEY
M. P. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER (ECF No. 49)
Plaintiff Monte L. Haney is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 6, 2012, an order adopting the findings and recommendations issued and this action was dismissed and judgment. (ECF No. 47, 48.) On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order. (ECF No. 49.)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for injunctive relief, 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, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (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] 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." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998).
Since this action has been dismissed there is no case or controversy before the Court upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, filed November 8, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.