(PC)Garcia v. Joaquin et al, No. 1:2010cv00730 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Library Access be Denied; Objections due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/7/2010. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 11/12/2010. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Garcia v. Joaquin et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 VICENTE GARCIA, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-730-AWI-MJS (PC) 7 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LIBRARY ACCESS BE DENIED 8 v. 9 A. JOAQUIN, et al., 10 (ECF No. 14) Defendants. 11 OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS / 12 13 Plaintiff Vicente Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 14 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 2, 2010, 15 Plaintiff filed a document asking the Court to order the prison library staff to grant him 16 access to the law library for two hours a day, five days a week for the next sixty days. 17 (ECF No. 14.) The Court construes this as a motion for injunctive relief. 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the 19 Court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 20 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 21 If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear 22 the matter in question. Id. 23 Plaintiff’s complaint in this action alleges that Defendants’ treatment of (or failure to 24 treat) his diabetes violates his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) Thus, for jurisdictional 25 purposes, the pending controversy involves Plaintiff’s medical treatment claim is. Because 26 any order granting Plaintiff law library access would not remedy his medical claims, the 27 Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. 28 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for access to the law Dockets.Justia.com 1 library be DENIED. 2 3 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 5 Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the 6 Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Any such document should be captioned 7 "Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised 8 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 9 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: ci4d6 October 7, 2010 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
