Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00737-2/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LYNN WATERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

LT. A. DIAZ, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-00737-OWW-GSA-PC 

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DENY MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

Michael Lynn Waters ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2008, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action.

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”) in Corcoran, California. In the

complaint, plaintiff has requested immediate preliminary injunctive relief, including orders for

defendants to "leave [him] alone," release his property, and transfer him from CSP to a "very safe"

facility.

I. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Case 1:08-cv-00737-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 06/05/08 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 2

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, 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 state a claim upon

which relief can be granted under section 1983 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. Id.

II. CONCLUSION

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

preliminary injunctive relief 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). Within thirty (30) days

Case 1:08-cv-00737-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 06/05/08 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 3

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 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: June 4, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00737-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 06/05/08 Page 3 of 3