Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00086-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE

DENIED

(Doc. 10)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2005, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks a

court order mandating that prison employees in 4B2R honor and feed plaintiff in accordance with

his paper tray status, notify medical staff of plaintiff’s state of malnutrition, and issue plaintiff

nutritional supplements. 

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

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 06/29/06 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

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 is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a

threshold and preliminary matter the court must have before it for consideration a “case” or

“controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If the court does not have a “case” or

“controversy” before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.

2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). “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). 

The events giving rise to plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction occurred from November 3, 2005, through the filing of the motion and involve the alleged

failure of prison staff to provide plaintiff with breakfast and dinner on a paper tray, in accordance

with plaintiff’s paper tray status. This action was filed on January 21, 2005, and involves events that

occurred prior to that date. This action does not involve any claim based on the failure to feed

plaintiff breakfast and dinner, commencing in November of 2005. Indeed, given that plaintiff filed

this action on January 21, 2005, and is required to exhaust claims prior to filing suit, any claim which

accrued in November of 2005 would have to be raised in a new action once the claim was exhausted.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The court

does not have jurisdiction, in this action, to issue the order sought by plaintiff, assuming plaintiff is

even entitled to the issuance of such an order.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed December 23, 2005, 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

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 06/29/06 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

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 29, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 3