Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01148-0/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

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

SCOTT K. RICKS, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

O. ONYEJE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01148-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

(Doc. 4.)

I. BACKGROUND

Scott J. Ricks ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this case on July 24, 2015, 

together with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 1, 4.) 

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01148-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Ademonstrates 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 Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an 

injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a 

bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust 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. Thus, A[a] federal 

court may issue an injunction [only] 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). 

Discussion

Plaintiff requests an order requiring defendants to refrain from administering medical 

treatment to Plaintiff or participating in Plaintiff’s inmate appeals. Plaintiff also requests a 

court order enabling him to be seen by a surgeon for hernia repair surgery.

Moreover, A[A] federal court may [only] 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). Because none of the defendants 

have appeared in this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting

any of them from acting against Plaintiff or requiring them to act on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

Case 1:15-cv-01148-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied at this juncture. Plaintiff is not precluded from 

renewing the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for 

preliminary injunction, filed July 24, 2015, is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01148-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 3