Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00912/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00912-12/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

EFREM STUTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLEN SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO REPLACE 

TRANSCRIPT

(Doc. 25)

Plaintiff Efrem Stutson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed June 25, 2007, against Defendants Martinez, Northcuff, and Cantu for

use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a

motion seeking an order requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff with a transcript of the

proceedings when he was sentenced. Plaintiff contends that prison officials lost or destroyed his

transcript and he needs it for his appeal. In accordance with the Court’s general practice, the motion

is treated as one seeking a preliminary injunction.

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, 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. “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 33 Filed 07/28/08 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

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). 

In this instance, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants arises from an incident of alleged

excessive force at California State Prison-Corcoran on June 23, 2005. (Doc. 1.) The Court does not

have jurisdiction in this action to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, as the case or controversy

requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion

bears no relation to the event giving rise to this suit.

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion, filed May 1, 2008, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 33 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 2