Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv–1264-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

A COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 79)

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“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 January 9, 2012, an order issued

adopting the findings and recommendations and granting Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. (ECF No. 77.) Judgment was entered and this action was closed. (ECF No. 78.) On

January 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order allowing him daily access to the law

library. (ECF No. 79.) 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the Court is bound by the requirement

that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v.

Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of

Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. The case or controversy

requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that judgment has been entered in favor of Defendants

and the case has been closed. Because this case has been closed, the case-or-controversy

requirement is not met such that this action provides no basis upon which this court can issue the

1

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 85 Filed 04/30/12 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

requested order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a court order, filed January 10, 2012, is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 27, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 85 Filed 04/30/12 Page 2 of 2