Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01121/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01121-18/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD YOUNG, 1:07-cv-01121-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs. AS PREMATURE 

(Doc. 45.) 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Howard Young ("plaintiff”), is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 2, 2007. 

(Doc. 1.) On August 15, 2007, plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and no other parties

have appeared in this action. (Doc. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of

the Eastern District of California, the Magistrate Judge shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 

On August 31, 2009, plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) On March 5, 2009,

the court dismissed the first amended complaint, with leave to amend. (Doc. 19.) On August 31, 2009,

plaintiff filed the second amended complaint. (Doc. 42.) On June 21, 2010, the court screened the

second amended complaint and found only one cognizable claim, for retaliation against defendant

1

Case 1:07-cv-01121-AWI-GSA Document 58 Filed 06/22/10 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

Officer Barron. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiff has been granted leave to file a third amended complaint or to

proceed on the claim found cognizable by the court. Id.

On November 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which is now before the

court. (Doc. 45.)

II. JURISDICTION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminarymatter, 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. 

At this point in time, there is no case or controversy before the court, and the court has no

jurisdiction to grant summary judgment. Plaintiff’s cognizable claims have not been determined, and

defendants have not been served. Until and unless the court finds that plaintiff has stated cognizable

claims for relief under section 1983 and the defendants against whom the claims are stated have been

served and made an appearance in this action, the court will not have jurisdiction to issue any orders

awarding the relief plaintiff seeks. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment must be denied as premature.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, filed on November 20, 2009, is DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 22, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01121-AWI-GSA Document 58 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2