Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01876/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01876-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR F. VASQUEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01876-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

FOR AN ORDER TO GRANT PLU STATUS

(Doc. 38)

Plaintiff, Arthur F. Vasquez, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's 

cognizable claims in the Second Amended Complaint against: (1) Dr. Scott for inadequate 

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) Dr. Grimm for inadequate medical care 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) Dr. Grimm for failure to treat an immediate medical 

need in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6; and (4) against Dr. Joaquin, Dr. Scott, Dr. Grimm, 

Pharmacist Atarod, Nurse Lapham, Nurse Bautista, and Nurse Andreola on his unenumerated 

claims of medical malpractice. (See Docs. 11-16.)

On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for an order requesting Plaintiff have PLU 

status for legal library access. (Doc. 38.) Defendants filed a response. (Doc. 39.) The motion is 

deemed submitted, L.R. 230(l), and construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

Plaintiff is advised that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering 

a request for preliminary injunctive relief, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of 

Case 1:10-cv-01876-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/17/14 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

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. 

Here, Plaintiff seeks an order giving him priority user status because he claims this is 

necessary so he can research “what facts may be necessary to state a cause of action.” (Doc. 38 at 

1) Notably, however, the Court has found already that he has stated a claim. (Doc. 16) 

Moreover, there is no showing that any of the defendants to this action have any authority over 

the timing and frequency of Plaintiff’s visits to the law library and they affirmatively deny that 

they do. (Doc. 39 at 2) Thus, it appears Plaintiff is requesting this Court order a person who is 

not a party to this case to take certain action. However, the Court has authority only over those 

before it and there is no current case or controversy with this unidentified third party. Thus, the 

mere pendency of this action provides no basis upon which to provide Plaintiff the relief he seeks. 

Id. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for PLU status, February 13, 2014 (Doc. 38), is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01876-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/17/14 Page 2 of 2