Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01579/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01579-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANTE CRAIG, 1:05-cv-01579-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HERNANDEZ, et al., (Doc. 7.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

Defendants. DAYS

 

 /

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Dante Craig (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 13, 2005,

against defendants Hernandez and Does 1 through 3, for violation of his rights to Equal Protection and

for failure to protect him under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.) On January 19, 2007, the court

dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983

against any of the defendants, with leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 7.) On February 15, 2007,

plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) The court has not screened the amended complaint. On

May 19, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 11.)

II. JURISDICTION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must have

before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,

Case 1:05-cv-01579-AWI-GSA Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 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

2

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); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th

Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the

matter in question. Id. 

At this point in time, there is no case or controversy before the court, and the court has no

jurisdiction to grant summary judgment. The court has not screened the amended complaint, and

defendants have not been served. Until and unless the court finds that plaintiff has stated cognizable

claims for relief under section 1983 and the defendants against whom the claims are stated have been

served and made an appearance in this action, the court will not have jurisdiction to issue any orders

awarding the relief plaintiff seeks. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment must be denied without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, filed on May 19, 2008, be denied without prejudice.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court

Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 7, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01579-AWI-GSA Document 13 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 2