Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00782/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00782-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assualt,Slander

---

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

KIRELL FRANCIS BETTIS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JOHN WALSH, AMERICA’S MOST )

WANTED, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv0782 LJO DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

AN EMERGENCY ORDER

(Document 36)

Plaintiff Kirell Francis Bettis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this diversity action. 

On May 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Emergency Interlocutory Order,” in

which he requests (1) access to the law library; and (2) an order requiring the Mens Central Jail

Classification Department to place him in protective custody. He alleges that he was assaulted

on April 27, 2007, as a result of circulation of his allegedly false statement implicating a codefendant. Pursuant to this Court’s standard practice, the motion is construed as one seeking

preliminary injunctive relief.

DISCUSSION

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.

Case 1:06-cv-00782-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 05/15/07 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

2

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 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. 

As the Court explained in its April 11, 2007, Findings and Recommendation, this action

is proceeding against Defendants John Walsh and America’s Most Wanted under this Court’s

diversity jurisdiction for allegations of slander. Because an order relating to Plaintiff’s

classification status or his access to the law library would not remedy the claims upon which this

action proceeds, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. 

RECOMMENDATION

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed May 8, 2007, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J.

O’Neill, United States District Judge, 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 

Case 1:06-cv-00782-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 05/15/07 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

3

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 15, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00782-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 3