Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05760/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05760-2/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

ALFONSO G. MATA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETER TOME,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-5760-LJO-P

ORDERDENYINGPLAINTIFF’SMOTIONFOR

A COURT ORDER MANDATING THE

RETURN OF HIS FILE 

(Doc. 79) 

Plaintiff Alfonso Mata (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion seeking the return of his central file so that he may be classified for release from the Security

Housing Unit (SHU). 

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 (9th Cir. 1972). “A federal court may issue an injunction 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 before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service,

753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). 

This action is proceeding against defendant Tome on plaintiff’s claim that defendant acted

with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk to plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth

Case 1:01-cv-05760-NEW Document 95 Filed 07/13/05 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

Amendment. The issuance of the order sought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy the claim

alleged in this action. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an order mandating the return of his file so that he may

be classified for release from the SHU, filed July 5, 2005, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05760-NEW Document 95 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2