(PC) Bradley v. Villa et al, No. 1:2010cv01618 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's request for access to the law library be DENIED; re 7 MOTION for Library Access filed by William Bradley ; referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/07/2010. Objections to F&R due by 11/12/2010 (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bradley v. Villa et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 WILLIAM BRADLEY, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-1618-LJO-MJS (PC) 7 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LIBRARY ACCESS BE DENIED 8 v. 9 J. VILLA, et al., 10 (ECF No. 7) Defendants. 11 OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS / 12 13 Plaintiff William Bradley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 14 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 20, 15 2010, Plaintiff filed a document asking the Court to order the prison library staff to grant 16 him access to the law library for the next forty-five days. (ECF No. 7.) The Court construes 17 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 violated his Eighth 24 Amendment rights by the use of excessive force. (ECF No. 1.) Any orders relating to law 25 library access would not remedy the claim upon which this action proceeds. The Court 26 therefore lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court 27 RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for access to the law library be DENIED. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the 4 Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Any such document should be captioned 5 "Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised 6 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 7 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: ci4d6 October 7, 2010 Michael J. Seng /s/ 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.
