Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01130/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01130-3/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

1 07cv1130

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID VELASQUEZ, Civil No. 07cv1130-LAB (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION

[Doc. No. 44]

v.

A. BARRIOS; C. GRAY; C. ROBERTSON; M.

LEVIN; F. PASCUA; R. TORREZ;

GONZALES; FLINT, S. THOMAS; C. HALL;

N. GRANNIS; L.E. SCRIBNER,

Defendants.

Plaintiff David Velasquez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed an “Injunction on California Department of

Corrections.” [Doc. No. 44.] In the motion for an injuction, plaintiff alleges that a lot of his “legal mail”

has been coming to him opened and retaped. [Doc. No. 44 at 2.] Plaintiff apparently seeks an injunction

preventing corrections officers from opening Plaintiff’s mail. Id. For the reasons set forth below,

plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction and, as a threshold matter, must have before it a

case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968). In the absence of such a case or

controversy, the court has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th

Cir. 1972). “A federal court may issue an [order] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

Case 3:07-cv-01130-LAB-KSC Document 50 Filed 02/25/08 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 07cv1130

before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

Here, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges violations of his constitutional rights under

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, Plaintiff’s allegations in the current motion, that

Plaintiff’s mail allegedly is being illegally opened by corrections officers, were not included in the

complaint. The issuance of the order and/or injunction sought by Plaintiff in this motion would not

address any of the claims alleged in current action. Accordingly, because this Court lacks jurisdiction to

issue such an order or injunction, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. See Michael v. Napa County, 709 F.2d

1268, 1273 n.4 (9th Cir. 1983)(stating the Court need not consider claims which are not included in the

complaint).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01130-LAB-KSC Document 50 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 2