Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01513-1/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY RICHARD, CASE NO. CV-F-06-1513 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

M. MARTINEZ, et al.,

[Doc. 5]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed December 12,

2006. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction requiring Avenal State Prison and CDCR staff from

retaliating against him and from opening his mail. Plaintiff also seeks an order transferring him to

another prison. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-01513-LJO -DLB Document 6 Filed 12/18/06 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

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.

“A federal court may issue an injunction 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) (emphasis

added). Plaintiff has not yet submitted a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis nor has

plaintiff paid the appropriate filing fee for this action. Consequently, the Court has not yet determined

whether plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff is not

entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his complaint contains

cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants have been served

with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief

is premature. Plaintiff may file another motion for preliminary injunctive relief at a later stage. Plaintiff

is cautioned to any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are filed before defendants are

served with process in this case will be denied as premature. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 12, 2006, be denied, without prejudice, as premature.

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 twenty (20) days

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: December 15, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

Case 1:06-cv-01513-LJO -DLB Document 6 Filed 12/18/06 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

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01513-LJO -DLB Document 6 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 3