Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429-2/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

ROBERTO HERRERA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

GILL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01429-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

(Docs. 9, 10.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Roberto Herrera ("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 the Complaint 

commencing this action on September 9, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint 

and entered an order on January 17, 2014, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, 

with leave to amend. (Doc. 11.)

On October 10, 2013 and October 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions for preliminary 

injunctive relief. (Docs. 9, 10.)

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. 

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/21/14 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

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who 

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 a court order directing prison officials to follow the correct procedures 

in delivering medication, to resolve issues concerning Plaintiff’s mattress, to provide Plaintiff 

with indigent envelopes, and to resolve problems with interference with Plaintiff’s mail. 

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed on January 17, 2014, with leave to amend, 

the court does not have before it an actual case or controversy at this juncture, nor does the 

court have jurisdiction over any of the defendants in this action. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/21/14 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

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motions

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on October 10, 2013 and October 23, 2013, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are 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 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such a 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 21, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 3