Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00063/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00063-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ERIC ANTOINE,

Plaintiff, 1: 06 CV 0063 OWW WMW PC 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 RE MOTION (DOC 16)

P. R. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting a court order directing prison officials “to show

cause why this appeal should not be exhausted.” This action was dismissed on July 31, 2006, for

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff

appears to have pursued administrative exhaustion, and seeks a court order “ordering C.D.C. to

allow me to exhaust my administrative remedies.” 

A preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of ensuring that plaintiff is able to

litigate this action effectively or efficiently. A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 

Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a threshold and preliminary matter the court must have

before it for consideration a “case” or “controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If

the court does not have a “case” or “controversy” before it, it has no power to hear the matter in

question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (9 Cir. 1972). This action has been th

Case 1:06-cv-00063-OWW -WMW Document 17 Filed 09/04/08 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

2

dismissed, and the time for filing any appeal has run. There is no case or controversy before the

court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a court order

be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s

findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00063-OWW -WMW Document 17 Filed 09/04/08 Page 2 of 2