Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00108-8/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

EDWARD JULIAN MULLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. WENCIKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00108 OWW DLB P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

DOCUMENTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN

OF PROPERTY

(Docs. 25, 26, 27, and 28)

Plaintiff Edward Julian Mullins (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a document

entitled “Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents.” (Doc. 25). In this filing, plaintiff

requests that defendant Horel produce a video, an incident package, and a medical report related to

an altercation plaintiff was involved in at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) on April 15, 2007. On

September 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery requesting that the court order

defendant Horel to produce the items listed above pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. (Doc. 28). Finally, plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Return Illegally Seized

Property. (Doc. 26 and 27). In this motion, plaintiff requests that the court issue an order requiring

that defendants return his television set that was taken from him on August 2, 2007, when he was

placed in administrative segregation at PBSP.

All three of these motions will be denied as they are premature. Federal courts are courts of

limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must have before it an actual case or

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 32 Filed 10/19/07 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

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. Plaintiff’s case needs to be screened by the court to determine if plaintiff’s compliant

states cognizable claims for relief under federal law against one or more of the named defendants.

Once that occurs, the court will not have any jurisdiction over the named defendants until they are

served with process and make an appearance in this action. If it is determined that the case presents

a cognizable claim, the court will issue an order which will give the parties instructions regarding

the discovery process and set discovery deadlines. Plaintiff should not file additional requests for

discovery or discoverymotions until this process is completed and the court issues an order outlining

the parameters of the discovery process. 

Additionally, plaintiff’s motion requesting the return of his television set is also denied. In

addition to being premature, plaintiff’s motion relates to an incident that occurred at PBSP in August

of 2007, after the filing of his amended complaint on August 25, 2006. (Doc. 2-9). Because an order

mandating the return of the plaintiff’s property would not remedy the claim upon which this action

proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff. Further, since there is

no constitutional right to possess a television set, this court has no authority to order defendants to

return plaintiff’s property to him.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above motions plaintiff filed on September 14, 2007

September 21, 2007 are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 19, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 32 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 2