Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00605/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00605-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY DAVIS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. WILSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-00605-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 3.)

I. BACKGROUND

Kelly Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action 

on April 29, 2016, together with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.)

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.) 

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is now before the Court.

Case 1:16-cv-00605-EPG Document 9 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of 

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the Court to intervene to secure 

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. 

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who 

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable 

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” 

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either 

approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, 

an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. 

At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or 

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the Court 

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 

102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, 

Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (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. As an initial matter, “a court has no power to adjudicate a 

personal claim or obligation unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (emphasis added); S.E.C. v. 

Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Discussion

Plaintiff requests a Court order enjoining defendants from denying or delaying medical 

treatment to Plaintiff including “appropriate diagnostic procedures, appropriate specialist 

consultations and recommend[ed] procedure[s] and treatments deemed necessary, from denying 

or delaying prescription of appropriate and effective pain relief medications for lumbar disc(s) 

desiccation, hypertrophic degeneration, annular fissures and multiple central canal & bilateral 

neural forminal narrowing.” (ECF No. 3 at 1:20-25.)

Case 1:16-cv-00605-EPG Document 9 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

In this case, no defendant has yet made an appearance; it is not yet time for service of 

process in this case, which will then trigger defendants’ obligation to file a response to the 

complaint. Whatever merit there might otherwise be to Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary 

injunction, at this juncture the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it 

cannot issue an order requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; 

Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Plaintiff is not 

precluded from renewing the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 29, 2016, is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00605-EPG Document 9 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3