Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06770/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06770-11/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

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM PLUMMER, 1: CASE NO. 04 CV-6770 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vs. [Doc. 65]

OBJECTIONS DUE MAY 30, 2007

WARDEN EDWARD CADEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

While unclear, it appears that plaintiff is seeking disclosure of his medical records from the Los Angeles

County District Attorney’s Office in criminal case number KA044267. 

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

so heavily favorsthe 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

Case 1:04-cv-06770-AWI-DLB Document 66 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 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

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, 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] 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). 

In a separate order, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. At

this juncture, the court does not yet have before it an actual case or controversy. Further, assuming that

plaintiff files an amended complaint that states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983, until the

complaint has been served on defendants and they have appeared in this action, the court will not have

jurisdiction over any of the defendants and may not issue any orders mandating that they take certain

action. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed April 23, 2007, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or before May 30,

2007, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 3, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

Case 1:04-cv-06770-AWI-DLB Document 66 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 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

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06770-AWI-DLB Document 66 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 3