Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688-5/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

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05688-OWW-LJO P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 30 and 31)

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On August 25, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an objection on

September 15, 2006.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 33 Filed 12/04/06 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

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the Ccourt does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 

The claims in this action arise from events which occurred at the California Correctional

Institution in Tehachapi between December 2001 and March 2003, at which time plaintiff was

transferred to California State Prison-Corcoran. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff is currently housed at the

California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (CSTAF). In his

motion, plaintiff alleges that on July 12, 2006, his legal and personal property was confiscated from

his cell at CSTAF. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff characterizes the confiscation as “illegal” and seeks

intervention by the Court because he needs his legal material to litigate the pending action. (Id.) 

Because the order sought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy claims alleged in this

action, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. Plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to

a preliminary injunction due to ongoing retaliatory activity is without merit. 

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed August 25, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL, and plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 27, 2006,

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 33 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 2