Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00233/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00233-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY MORGAN, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

TILTON, et al., ) 

)

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-00233-OWW-GSA-PC 

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE

DENIED

(Doc. 22.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

 

I. BACKGROUND 

KellyMorgan ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on February 15, 2008. (Doc.

1.) On October 13, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. 22.) On

October 15, 2009, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief is now before the court.

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may

only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted)

(emphasis added).

1

Case 1:08-cv-00233-LJO-GSA Document 35 Filed 04/02/10 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

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminarymatter, 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. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests preliminary injunctive relief via federal warrants for the arrest of the Warden,

Deputy Warden, Assistant Warden, Associate Warden and Law Library Manager for their continued

denial of Plaintiff's access to the C-Facility law library. In the first amended complaint, plaintiff brings

claims against defendants for harassment, retaliation, inadequate medical treatment, and violation of due

process. Because federal warrants to arrest prison officials would not remedy any of the claims upon 1

which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed October 13, 2009, 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

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: April 2, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

The court has not screened the first amended complaint to determine if it states cognizable claims. 28 U.S.C. §

1

1915A(a).

2

Case 1:08-cv-00233-LJO-GSA Document 35 Filed 04/02/10 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

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00233-LJO-GSA Document 35 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 3