Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00834/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00834-4/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

LAFAYETTE CADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUZAN HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00834-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 8)

Plaintiff Lafayette Cade (“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 July 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from employing adverse substances

to debilitate plaintiff mentally and physically; interfering with plaintiff’s ability to litigate and obtain

adequate medical care; withholding or tampering with plaintiff’s property; and inspecting, delaying,

or tampering with plaintiff’s inmate appeals and mail.

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted). 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

Case 1:05-cv-00834-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 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

2

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.

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). At this juncture, plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims

for relief in this action. In a separate order issued concurrently with this Findings and

Recommendations, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, at this time, plaintiff is not entitled to any

type of preliminary injunction, as the court lacks jurisdiction to issue any such orders.

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 26, 2005, be DENIED, without prejudice.

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: January 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00834-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2