(PC) Valles v. Boparal et al, No. 1:2012cv01638 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denying Plaintiff's 8 Request for Production of Documents; Objections Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/21/2012. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 12/26/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Valles v. Boparal et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHRISTOPHER VALLES, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01638-AWI-BAM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BOPARAL, et al., (ECF No. 8.) 13 Defendants. / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY-DAYS 14 15 Plaintiff Christopher Valles is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on October 5, 2012, and is 17 currently pending screening. On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a request for 18 production of documents. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff states that he contacted an attorney who indicated 19 that he might take Plaintiff’s case and provided the attorney with his medical documents. The 20 attorney has since declined to take the case and did not return the documents. Plaintiff requests the 21 Court to call or write to the attorney and direct him to return the documents to Plaintiff so he can 22 litigate this action. 23 Plaintiff is seeking an order from the court which is a form of injunctive relief. Federal 24 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, 25 the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case 26 or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); 27 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 28 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further 2 limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the 3 Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 4 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 5 the Federal right.” 6 Plaintiff’s allegations that prison officials failed to provide adequate medical care does not 7 confer upon the court jurisdiction to order the attorney he contacted regarding the case to return his 8 documents. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for production 9 of documents, filed November 13, 2012, be denied. 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 12 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 13 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 14 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 16 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k November 21, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
