Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00973/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00973-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00973-AWI-SMS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REASSIGNMENT

(Doc. 23)

Plaintiff, Rodney Karl Blackwell, is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 29, 2009, the Findings and Recommendation issued recommending dismissal of

Plaintiff’s federal claim allegations and remanding Plaintiff’s action to Fresno County Superior

Court. (Doc. 21.) The Findings and Recommendations was adopted in full and this case was closed

on March 25, 2009. (Doc. 22.) Over a year later, on June 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting

this case be reassigned to the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 23.)

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 this case has been dismissed and closed. Because

this case has been dismissed with prejudice and closed, the case-or-controversy requirement is not

1

Case 1:07-cv-00973-AWI -SMS Document 24 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

met such that this action provides no basis upon which to grant Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reassignment, filed June 1, 2010, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00973-AWI -SMS Document 24 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 2