Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00592/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00592-4/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

JAMES ARTHUR HILL,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CDCR, 

 Defendant.

1:13-cv-01752-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 21.)

I. BACKGROUND

James Arthur Hill ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on October 3, 2013, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 

of California. (Doc. 1.) On October 21, 2013, as instructed by the court, Plaintiff re-submitted 

the Complaint on the court’s form. (Doc. 8.) On October 29, 2013, the case was transferred to 

the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 12.) On May 8, 2014, the court issued an order 

dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 22.)

On October 21, 2013 and November 7, 2013, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an 

appearance. (Docs. 10, 16.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the 

Case 2:15-cv-00592-EFB Document 23 Filed 05/09/14 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

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).

On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which is 

now before the court. (Doc. 21.)

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 

Ademonstrates 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 Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an 

injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a 

bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust 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, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation 

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (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. Thus, A[a] federal 

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 

before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 

1985). 

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-00592-EFB Document 23 Filed 05/09/14 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

Discussion

Plaintiff requests a court order directing prison officials to provide him with medical 

treatment at an outside hospital. 

By separate order issued on May 8, 2014, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

granted him leave to file an amended complaint which will supercede the Complaint (Doc. 22.) 

Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file the amended complaint. (Id.) Therefore, at 

this juncture, the court does not yet have before it an actual case or controversy, nor does the 

court have jurisdiction over any of the defendants in this action. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 23, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00592-EFB Document 23 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 3