(PC) Dupree v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization et al, No. 1:2011cv01233 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Addressing Plaintiff's 20 Objections to the Findings and Recommendations and 23 Letter, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/11/2011. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Dupree v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization et al Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD JOSE DUPREE, JR., 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01233-AWI-SMS PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND LETTER v. MISTY MILLS, et al., (ECF Nos. 20, 23) Defendants. / 14 15 After findings and recommendations issued recommending dismissing this action for failure 16 to state a claim on August 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction . Accordingly 17 this action was assigned to the Magistrate Judge, the findings and recommendations were vacated 18 and the action was dismissed on August 10, 2011. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s 19 objections to the findings and recommendations and a letter requesting injunctive relief. 20 Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations merely set forth further allegations 21 that private individuals have violated his civil rights. As Plaintiff was advised in the order 22 dismissing his action, “[t]he United States Constitution protects individual rights only from 23 government action, not from private action.” Single Moms, Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 331 F.3d 24 743, 746 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). “Only when the government is responsible for a 25 plaintiff’s complaints are individual constitutional rights implicated.” Single Moms, Inc., 331 F.3d 26 at 746-47 (citing Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 27 288, 295, 121 S. Ct. 924, 930 (2001)) (emphasis in original). 28 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the Court is bound by the requirement 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. 2 Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 3 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 4 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. The case or controversy 5 requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that this action has been dismissed for failure to state 6 a claim. Because this case has been dismissed and closed, the case-or-controversy requirement is 7 not met such that this action provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff relief. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 August 11, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
