Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01405-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN 

OF PROPERTY

(ECF No. 24.)

On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time and a motion for return 

of his property. (ECF No. 24.)

I. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff requests an extension of an unspecified deadline in this action. The only court 

deadline pending in this case is a deadline to file the First Amended Complaint, and court 

granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file the First Amended Complaint on July 24, 

2015. Therefore, the extension of time requested by Plaintiff has already been granted, and 

Plaintiff’s present motion is moot.

II. MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY

Plaintiff also requests a court order directing prison officials to return his property to 

him. 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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. Thus, A[a] federal 

court may issue an injunction [only] 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). 

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison officials at Corcoran State Prison to return 

his personal property. 

By separate order issued on May 18, 2015, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint 

and granted him leave to file an amended complaint which will supercede the Complaint. (ECF 

No. 19.) On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time to file the 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) Therefore, at this juncture, there is no operative complaint 

on file, and the court does not have before it an actual case or controversy. Thus, the court 

lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s motion for extension of time, filed on July 22, 2015, is 

DISREGARDED as moot; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for return of his property, filed on July 22, 2015, is DENIED 

for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2