Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00009-4/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

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

KIM VELASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00009 LJO GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docs. 15 & 16)

I. Introduction

Kim Velasquez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 2, 2008. (Doc. 1). In the

complaint, he alleges he was taken to University Medical Center on April 1, 2004, for hip surgery.

During the surgery, he alleges he was given a blood transfusion while he was unconscious which

gave him hepatitis. On February 6, 2008, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to

amend. (Doc. 10). The deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint is March 10, 2008. To

date, no amended complaint has been filed. 

On February 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel and a motion for temporary

restraining order against CDC officials. (Docs. 15 & 16). The court construes Plaintiff’s motion for

a temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. Both motions pending before

the court are DENIED for the reasons set forth below. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motions

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

On February 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 12). 

Plaintiff’s motion was dated January 29, 2008. The court denied that motion on February 15, 2008.

Case 1:08-cv-00009-LJO-GSA Document 17 Filed 02/26/08 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

(Doc. 14). Plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel filed on February 21, 2008, appears to be

the same motion Plaintiff filed previously. However, in the instant motion, Plaintiff has indicated

a “re-newed” date of February 15, 2008. This motion is duplicative and is DENIED for the reasons

set forth in the court’s order dated February 15, 2008. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

In the motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, Plaintiff alleges that

he has been assigned to Vocational Area Education. In order to attend that program, Plaintiff alleges

he must strip down out of his clothing and is required to bend in many different ways to comply with

clearance procedures. However, Plaintiff states that he is unable to comply with these requirements

due to physical limitations in his hips. Plaintiff alleges that the guards do not believe him and they

are requiring him to do the movements repeatedly. Plaintiff alleges that he has been disciplined for

his failure to attend the program and that he is appealing those disciplinary procedures. He states

that if a TRO is not immediately granted, he will suffer irreparable injury. It is unclear from the

motion whether Plaintiff is requesting that he not be required to complete the bending requirements,

or whether Plaintiff is requesting that the court take some action regarding the state of the

disciplinary procedures against him. In either event, the court is without jurisdiction to take any

action. 

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 ofthe merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

Case 1:08-cv-00009-LJO-GSA Document 17 Filed 02/26/08 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

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. 

In this instance, there is not yet an actual case or controversy before the court. 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. There will not

be an actual case or controversy until the court makes a finding that plaintiff’s amended compliant

states cognizable claims for relief under federal law against one or more of the named defendants.

Once that occurs, the court will not have any jurisdiction over the named defendants until they are

served with process and make an appearance in this action. 

Assuming that the court makes such a finding and one or more defendants are served and

make an appearance in this action, Plaintiff will still not be entitled to the relief he seeks in his

motion. Plaintiff’s initial 1983 claims arise from the fact that he contracted hepatitis due to

Defendants’ negligence. It was unclear whether Plaintiff was even incarcerated at the time of the

surgery. Because Plaintiff is currently seeking relief that doesn’t remedy claims in the action, the

court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff and the motion is DENIED. 

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary

restraining order/preliminary injunction and Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel filed on

February 21, 2008, be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00009-LJO-GSA Document 17 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 3